Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
OBJECTIVE
To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine.


METHODS
Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory.


METHODS
Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada.


METHODS
The two committees and their 26 members.


METHODS
Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings.


RESULTS
Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions.


CONCLUSIONS
These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.
Singer
P A
PA
University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1L4. peter.singer@utoronto.ca
Martin
D K
DK
Giacomini
M
M
Purdy
L
L
D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D036262:Empirical Research; D005102:Health Expenditures; D006291:Health Policy; D006292:Health Priorities / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006331:Heart Diseases / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D009864:Ontario; D019982:Organizational Case Studies; D011367:Professional Staff Committees; D036301:Qualitative Research; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration*