Author:
Moes Floortje,Houwaart Eddy,Delnoij Diana,Horstman Klasien
Abstract
AbstractThis paper examines a remarkable lawsuit in health care rationing. The Patients Association for Interstitial Cystitis sued the Dutch National Health Care Institute for alleged misconduct against Interstitial Cystitis patients, as the Institute decided that bladder instillations with chondroitin sulphate or hyaluronic acid are no longer covered by the basic health insurance. The patients’ organisation challenged the Institute for basing its standpoint on scientific evidence; overruling clinical expertise and patients’ experiences. While scientific advice is often solicited in public health issues, simultaneously, the authority of scientific advice is increasingly being questioned in the public domain. Also, the judiciary is frequently called upon to adjudicate in rationing decisions. Based on an ethnographic study of the National Health Care Institute, drawing on insights from the field of Science and Technology Studies, we analyse this lawsuit as a negotiation of what knowledge counts in reimbursement decisions.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference54 articles.
1. Passend bewijs bij het bepalen van effectiviteit van interventies;Heymans;Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde,2013
2. Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service
3. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?;Greenhalgh;British Medical Journal (clinical Research Ed.),2014
4. What constitutes ‘Good’ evidence for public health and social policy making? From hierarchies to appropriateness;Parkhurst;Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective,2014
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献