Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:04:58.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology appraisal and the courts: accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2010

Keith Syrett
Keith Syrett*
Affiliation:
Reader in Public Law and Health Policy, School of Law, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Clifton, Bristol, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Keith Syrett, Reader in Public Law and Health Policy, School of Law, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recommendations issued by agencies undertaking appraisals of health technologies at the national level may impact upon the availability of certain treatments and services in some publicly funded health systems, and, as such, have regularly been subject to challenge, including by way of litigation. In addition to expertise in the evaluation of evidence, fairness of procedures has been identified as a necessary component of a claim to legitimacy in such circumstances. This article analyses the assessment of courts in three jurisdictions of the fairness of decision-making by such agencies and evaluates the judicial reading of procedural justice developed in this particular context against the conditions of ‘accountability for reasonableness’.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , 06 September 2011 , pp. 469 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcroft, R. (2008), ‘Fair process and the redundancy of bioethics: a polemic’, Public Health Ethics, 1: 3–9.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (2000), ‘Accountability for reasonableness’, British Medical Journal, 321: 1300–1301.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (2008), Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, N.Sabin, J. (2008), Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emanuel, E. (2002), ‘Book review: Setting Limits Fairly’, New England Journal of Medicine, 347: 953–954.Google Scholar
Friedman, A. (2008), ‘Beyond accountability for reasonableness’, Bioethics, 22: 101–112.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. (1978), ‘The forms and limits of adjudication’, Harvard Law Review, 92: 353–409.Google Scholar
Galligan, D. (1996), Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hasman, A.Holm, S. (2005), ‘Accountability for reasonableness: opening the black box of process’, Health Care Analysis, 13: 261–273.Google Scholar
Lauridsen, S.Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2009), ‘Legitimate allocation of public healthcare: beyond accountability for reasonableness’, Public Health Ethics, 2: 59–69.Google Scholar
Martin, D., Giacomini, M.Singer, P. (2002), ‘Fairness, accountability for reasonableness and the views of priority-setting decision-makers’, Health Policy, 61: 279–290.Google Scholar
Mitton, C., McMahon, M., Morgan, S.Gibson, J. (2006), ‘Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?’, Social Science and Medicine, 63: 200–211.Google Scholar
NICE (2009), Social Value Judgments, 2nd edn, London: NICE.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2003), ‘Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 51: 180–196.Google Scholar
Rawlins, M. (2005), ‘Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy’, Clinical Medicine, 5: 471–475.Google Scholar
Rid, A. (2009), ‘Justice and procedure: how does “accountability for reasonableness” result in fair limit-setting decisions?’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 35: 12–16.Google Scholar
Sabik, L.Lie, R. (2008), ‘Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 29: 73–85.Google Scholar
Schlander, M. (2007), ‘NICE and accountability for reasonableness: a qualitative study of its appraisal of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder’, Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23: 207–222.Google Scholar
Stevens, A.Milne, R. (2004), ‘Health technology assessment in England and Wales’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, 20: 11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrett, K. (2002), ‘NICE work? Rationing, review and the “legitimacy problem” in the new NHS’, Medical Law Review, 10: 1–27.Google Scholar
Syrett, K. (2007), Law, Legitimacy and the Rationing of Health Care: a Contextual and Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar