A four-country survey of public attitudes towards restricting healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost medical interventions

DSpace/Manakin Repository

A four-country survey of public attitudes towards restricting healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost medical interventions

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: A four-country survey of public attitudes towards restricting healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost medical interventions
Author: Zeldow, Deborah; Kim, Minah Kang; Blendon, Robert J.; Benson, John M.; Botta, Michael David

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Blendon, Robert J, John M Benson, Michael D Botta, Deborah Zeldow, and Minah Kang Kim. 2012. A four-country survey of public attitudes towards restricting healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost medical interventions. BMJ Open 2(3): e001087.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Objective: To discern how the public in four countries, each with unique health systems and cultures, feels about efforts to restrain healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost prescription drugs and medical/surgical treatments. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Adult populations in Germany, Italy, the UK and the USA. Participants: 2517 adults in the four countries. A questionnaire survey conducted by telephone (landline and cell) with randomly selected adults in each of the four countries. Main outcome measures: Support for different rationales for not providing/paying for high-cost prescription drugs/medical or surgical treatments, measured in the aggregate and using four case examples derived from actual decisions. Measures of public attitudes about specific policies involving comparative effectiveness and cost-benefit decision making. Results: The survey finds support among publics in four countries for decisions that limit the use of high-cost prescription drugs/treatments when some other drug/treatment is available that works equally well but costs less. The survey finds little public support, either in individual case examples or when asked in the aggregate, for decisions in which prescription drugs/treatments are denied on the basis of cost or various definitions of benefits. The main results are based on majorities of the public in each country supporting or opposing each measure. Conclusions: The survey findings indicate that the public distinguishes in practice between the concepts of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. This suggests that public authorities engaged in decision-making activities will find much more public support if they are dealing with the first type of decision than with the second.
Published Version: doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001087
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358613/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10484025
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters