TY - JOUR
T1 - Priority setting in health
T2 - Origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative
AU - Carter, Rob
AU - Vos, Theo
AU - Moodie, Marj
AU - Haby, Michelle
AU - Magnus, Anne
AU - Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
N1 - Funding Information:
The ACE research program has been funded and/or supported by a range of organizations and individuals. In particular the authors acknowledge, with thanks, funding support from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care for the ACE-Cancer study, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for the ACE-Heart Disease and ACE-Prevention studies, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and the Victorian Department of Human Services for the ACE-Mental Health study, the Victorian Department of Human Services for the ACE-Obesity study, the Victorian Quit program and the South Australian Health Commission for the Community Health studies. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Funding Information:
Competitive grant funding from the NHMRC
PY - 2008/12
Y1 - 2008/12
N2 - This article reports on the 'Assessing Cost-Effectiveness' (ACE) initiative in priority setting from Australia. It commences with why priority setting is topical and notes that a wide variety of approaches are available. In assessing these various approaches, it is argued that a useful first step is to consider what constitutes an 'ideal' approach to priority setting. A checklist to guide priority setting is presented based on guidance from economic theory, ethics and social justice, lessons from empirical experience and the needs of decision-makers. The checklist is seen as an important contribution because it is the first time that criteria from such a broad range of considerations have been brought together to develop a framework for priority setting that endeavors to be both realistic and theoretically sound. The checklist will then be applied to a selection of existing approaches in order to illustrate their deficiencies and to provide the platform for explaining the unique features of the ACE approach. A case study (ACE-Cancer) will then be presented and assessed against the checklist, including reaction from stakeholders in the cancer field. The article concludes with an overview of the full body of ACE research completed to date, together with some reflections on the ACE experience.
AB - This article reports on the 'Assessing Cost-Effectiveness' (ACE) initiative in priority setting from Australia. It commences with why priority setting is topical and notes that a wide variety of approaches are available. In assessing these various approaches, it is argued that a useful first step is to consider what constitutes an 'ideal' approach to priority setting. A checklist to guide priority setting is presented based on guidance from economic theory, ethics and social justice, lessons from empirical experience and the needs of decision-makers. The checklist is seen as an important contribution because it is the first time that criteria from such a broad range of considerations have been brought together to develop a framework for priority setting that endeavors to be both realistic and theoretically sound. The checklist will then be applied to a selection of existing approaches in order to illustrate their deficiencies and to provide the platform for explaining the unique features of the ACE approach. A case study (ACE-Cancer) will then be presented and assessed against the checklist, including reaction from stakeholders in the cancer field. The article concludes with an overview of the full body of ACE research completed to date, together with some reflections on the ACE experience.
KW - ACE approach
KW - Cost-effectiveness
KW - Equity and social justice
KW - Needs of decision-makers
KW - Priority setting checklist
KW - Resource allocation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68049146083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1586/14737167.8.6.593
DO - 10.1586/14737167.8.6.593
M3 - Review Article
AN - SCOPUS:68049146083
SN - 1473-7167
VL - 8
SP - 593
EP - 617
JO - Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
JF - Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
IS - 6
ER -