Die Debatte über Priorisierung und Rationierung in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung: überfällig oder überflüssig?

Storz, Philipp; Egger, Bernhard

doi:10.5771/1611-5821-2010-1-11

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ever since its resumption, the various aspects of prioritisation have been discussed following different political strategies and institutional procedures (Friedrich et al, 2009 ; Groß et al, 2010 ; Heil et al, 2010 ; Müller & Groß, 2009 ; Oduncu, 2012 ; Peacock et al, 2006 ; Raspe & Meyer, 2009 ; Schöne-Seifert, 2006 , Heyers, 2016 , Petri, 2015 ). The Central Ethics Committee for Observance of Ethical Principles in Medicine (ZEKO) and the German Medical Association have promoted the concept of prioritisation (ZEKO, 2007 ; ZEKO, 2000 ; Bundesärztekammer, 2014 ; Borck et al, 2012 ; Raspe & Schulze, 2013 ; Diederich et al, 2011 ) with specific focus on its legal, ethical and economic aspects and have supported the use of pre-defined criteria to evaluate medical services and benefits (Marckmann, 2009 ; Gordijn & Have, 2013 ; Oduncu, 2012 ; Borck et al, 2012 ; Storz & Egger, 2010 ; Kliemt, 2006 ).…”

Section: Background On the German Health Care Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment

Meusel

Mentzakis

Baji

et al. 2023

Int J Health Econ Manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, social healthcare systems must face the challenges of a growing scarcity of resources and of its inevitable distributional effects. Explicit criteria are needed to define the boundaries of public reimbursement decisions. As Germany stands at the beginning of such a discussion, more formalised priority setting procedures seem in order. Recent research identified multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a promising approach to inform and to guide decision-making in healthcare systems. In that regard, this paper aims to analyse the relative weight assigned to various criteria in setting priority interventions in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was employed in 2015 to elicit equity and efficiency preferences of 263 decision makers, through six attributes. The experiment allowed us to rate different policy interventions based on their features in a composite league table (CLT). As number of potential beneficiaries, severity of disease, individual health benefits and cost-effectiveness are the most relevant criteria for German decision makers within the sample population, the results display an overall higher preference towards efficiency criteria. Specific high priority interventions are mental disorders and cardiovascular diseases.

show abstract