Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:56:54.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supporting tough decisions in Norway: A healthcare system approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2010

Berit Mørland ,
Ånen Ringard  and
John-Arne Røttingen
Berit Mørland
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC)
Ånen Ringard
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC)
John-Arne Røttingen
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We describe, in general, the principles used in priority setting and, in particular, policy processes and decision making in Norway.

Methods: A newly established council for setting priorities in health care is presented to illustrate how health technology assessments (HTAs) can support national advisors in complex priority-setting processes.

Results and Conclusions: Setting priorities in health care is a complex task. Careful thinking is, therefore, required in determining the components of a system for priority-setting. Based on recent Norwegian experiences, we believe that the following generic parts may provide some of the solution: a common set of values; an organizational structure made up of key stakeholders; supporting mechanisms in the form of HTA organizations and documented best evidence; and loyalty to decisions by stakeholders responsible for implementing national policies.

Keywords

Health systemsPriority settingHealth technology assessment (HTA)Decision making
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 398 - 404
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

REFERENCES

1. Banta, D. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Setting limits fairly: Learning to share resources for health. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
3. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Garrido, MV, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
5. Ham, C. The 2009 budget and the NHS – Doctors need to be fully engaged in saving money and improving outcomes.Br Med J. 2009;338:1024–1025.Google Scholar
6. Ham, C, Robert, G. Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
7. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Nasjonal helseplan (2007-2010). (National health plan. In Norwegian.) Særtrykk av St.prp.nr.1 (2006-2007) kapittel 6. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 2006.Google Scholar
8. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Mandat for Nasjonalt råd for kvalitet og prioritering i helsetjenesten. (Mandate for the National Council for Quality Improvement and Priority Setting in Health Care. In Norwegian.) http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/R%C3%A5det/Mandat (accessed May 5, 2010).Google Scholar
9. Johanson, KA, Miljeteig, I, Norheim, OF. Høykostnadsmedisin – mangler vi åpne og legitime prosedyrer for prioritering? (High cost medicine – do we lack open and legitimate processes for prioritisation? In Norwegian.) Tidskr Nor Lægeforen. 2009;129:17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kitzhaber, J. Rationing in action: Prioritising health services in an era of limits: The Oregon experience. Br Med J. 1993;307:373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Maddern, G. Globalisation and HTAi – Issues and needs in relation to HTA. 6th Annual Meeting HTAI, Singapore; 2009.Google Scholar
12. Mørland, B. The history of health technology assessment in Norway. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):148–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Nasjonalt råd for kvalitet og prioritering i helsetjenesten. Innføring av HPV-vaksine i det nasjonale vaksinasjonsprogrammet. Datert 26. mars 2008. http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/Saker/12152.cms. Lest 4. mai 2010.Google Scholar
14. Norges offentlige utredninger. Retningslinjer for prioritering innen Norsk helsetjeneste. NOU 1987: 23. (Guidelines for prioritisation in Norwegian health care. In Norwegian.) Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 1987.Google Scholar
15. Norges offentlige utredninger. Prioritering på ny. Gjennomgang av retningslinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste. (Prioritisation again. Evaluation of guidelines for prioritisation in Norwegian health care. In Norwegian.) NOU 1997:18. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 1997.Google Scholar
16. Norheim, OF. Norway. Reasonable rationing. International experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
17. Nye og kostnadskrevende metoder. Forslag til håndtering av ny teknologi i helsetjenesten. (New and costly methods. Suggestion for handling new technology in health care. In Norwegian.) Rapport IS-13. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2009.Google Scholar
18. OECD. Health at a glance 2009: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/health/healthataglancedx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2009-en (accessed December 8, 2009).Google Scholar
19. Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, Bouter, LM. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessments in the Netherlands: Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226–236.Google Scholar
20. Spongberg, UW, Ringard, Å. Meeting rising public expectations: The changing role of patients and citizens. In: Magnussen, J, Vrangbæk, K, Saltman, RB, eds. Nordic health care systems—Recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill; 2009.Google Scholar
21. Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Priorities in health care: Ethics, economy, implementation. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and Social affairs; 1995.Google Scholar