Deciding subsidy for pharmaceuticals based on ambiguous evidence

Author:

Sjögren Ebba

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to inquire into how decisions about public fiscal responsibility for pharmaceutical spending are made and justified when there is a lack of coherent, unambiguous and undisputed evidence about the material characteristics of pharmaceutical use.Design/methodology/approachThis is an exploratory, single‐organisation case study of a Swedish governmental agency tasked with deciding whether prescription pharmaceuticals are included or excluded from the public pharmaceutical benefits scheme. A comparison is made of two intra‐organisational decision‐making processes based on interviews, document studies and participant observations undertaken over a period of two years.FindingsThe study shows that providing foundation for making decisions involves attempts to remove ambiguity among multiple knowledge claims about pharmaceuticals' characteristics. Three means of removing ambiguity are outlined. In addition, a fourth means of dealing with ambiguity is identified, when efforts to achieve coherence among multiple sources of knowledge fail. In this case ambiguity about pharmaceuticals' characteristics may be delegated to the individual medical professional to decide about treatment for specific patients.Research limitations/implicationsThe limited empirical material provides no statistical generalisability of the findings. However, the study has theoretical implications for understanding decision‐making processes in health care institutions.Originality/valueThe paper provides a detailed empirical account of a newly created health care assessment organisation similar to those created in other countries to tackle problems of resource allocation.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)

Reference40 articles.

1. Act on Pharmaceutical Benefits (2002), Reference No. SFS 2002:160, issued by Parliament on 11 April.

2. Arrow, K.J. (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York, NY.

3. Babe, R.E. (Ed.) (1994), Information and Communication in Economics, Kluwer, Boston, MA.

4. Brunsson, N. (1985), The Irrational Organisation: Irrationality as a Basis for Organisational Action and Change, Wiley, Chichester.

5. Brunsson, N. and Jönsson, S. (1979), Beslut och handling (Decision and Action), Liber, Stockholm.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3