Accounting for Tastes
Tóm tắt
Internationally, there has been a movement in medicine to better involve patients in decision making, whether it be at the individual or aggregate level. However, the German health sector has been slow to understand and accommodate the preferences of patients. This paper discusses the reasons why and attempts to highlight some of the consequences of not involving patients in healthcare decision making within the German context. We argue that a fundamental paradigm shift at all levels of the German health system, including better doctor/patient communication, is necessary for more choices to be available to patients and to better reflect patient preferences in centralised healthcare decision making. The newly created German health technology assessment agency (IQWiG; Institute for Quality and Economic Efficiency in the Health Care Sector) has indicated that they are interested in focusing on patient preferences, but there is a need for them to clarify what methods they deem suitable for doing so.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Beauchamp TL, Childress IF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989
Little M. Ethonomics: the ethics of the unaffordable. Arch Surg 2000; 135: 17–21
Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the extra in extra welfarism? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1121–1133
Goddard M, Hauck K, Preker A, et al. Priority setting in health: a political economy perspective. Health Econ Policy Law 2006; 1 (1): 79–90
Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (4): 213–224
Bridges J. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 317–321
Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy 2000; 52 (3): 179–192
Kranich C. Patientenkompetenz: was müssen Patienten wissen und können? Bundesgesundheitsblatt 2004; 47 (10): 950–956
Aita V, McIlvain H, Backer E, et al. Patient-centered care and communication in primary care practice: what is involved? Patient Educ Couns 2005; 58 (3): 296–304
Sachverständigenrat für die konzertierte Aktion im Gesundheitswesen. Gutachten 2000/2001 des Sachverstaändigenrates für die konzertierte Aktion im Gesundheitswesen. Bedarfsgerechtigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit. Band I: Zielbildung, Prävention, Nutzerorientierung und Partizipation. Deutscher Bundestag 200l. 14. Wahlperiode. Drucksache 14/5660
Katz IN. Patient preferences and health disparities. JAMA 2001; 286 (12): 1506–1509
Nagel G. Patientenkompetenz. Krankenhauspharmazie 2005; 26 (4): 128–133
Salkeld G, Solomon M, Butow P, et al. Discrete-choice experiment to measure patient preferences for the surgical management of colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92 (6): 742–747
Deinzer A, Hegemann T, Schmieder RE. Partnerschaftliche Entscheidungsfindung bei der Hypertoniebehandlung. MMW — Fortschritte der Medizin 2004; 16: 48–50
Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions: challenges for doctors. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 542–545
Schwappach DLB, Koeck CM. What makes an error unacceptable? A factorial survey on the disclosure of medical errors. Int J Qual Health Care 2004; 16 (4): 317–326
Schwappach DLB, Koeck CM. Preferences for disclosure the case of bedside rationing. Soc Sci Med 2004; 59: 1891–1897
Bastian H. Glaubwürdige Patienteninformationen in Zeiten des Informationsüberflusses. Die Ersatzkasse 2004; 12: 489–491
Bastian H. Allies or enemies? Evidence-based medicine and consumer choice. MJA 2000; 172: 5–6
Gan TJ, Lubarsky DA, et al. Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92 (5): 681–688
Geissler J. Organisierte Vertretung von Patienteninteressen: Patienten-Organisationen als gesundheitspolitische Akteure in Deutschland, Großbritannien und den USA. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac Verlag, 2004
Zok K. Gestaltungsoptionen in der Gesundheitspolitik. Bonn: WidO, 2003
Gellner W. Das Ende des klassischen Patienten? Gesundheitsreform zwischen Politik und Patienteninteresse. Presented at the Zukunftsforum Gesundheitspolitik der Universität Passau; 2004 Sep 29; Berlin [online]. Available from URL: http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/politik/zufog/texte/zufog_patienten.pdf [Accessed 2006 Apr 19]
Böcken J, Braun B, Schnee M. Gesundheitsmonitor 2004. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2004
Bastian H, Bender R, Kaiser T, et al. 2005 Methoden. Version 1.0. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.iqwig.de/index.media.0ef4c90e08bc5567c96f12891f51b711.pdf [Accessed 2006 Apr 19]
Gesundheitsinformation.de. IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gesundheitsinformation.de [Accessed 2006 Apr 18]