4.0 Article

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1744133123000038

关键词

healthcare priority-setting; ethics; social values; moral values; practical public reasoning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper offers a clear definition of key terms and distinguishes between different types of normative commitment, providing a novel conceptual framework for the reasoning behind health technology assessment (HTA). Through application to a hypothetical case, it demonstrates how this framework can enhance the transparency and coherence of decision-making and enable accountability.
It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据