The dragons mentioned in the title are (a) the failure of HTA methodologists to develop[em dash]and hence practitioners to use—tools for the consideration of equity in economic appraisals of health care technologies; (b) a similar and reinforcing failure to devise and implement processes of decision making that would facilitate the incorporation of equity in HTA. The draconian consequence is that equity is hardly considered at all and certainly does not get the same consideration as efficiency. Some initial suggestions are made as to how these dragons may be slain.
KuhnTS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed.Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1996.
2.
DrummondMFSculpherMJTorranceGWO’BrienBJStoddartGL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
3.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
4.
CochraneAL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
5.
JohriMNorheimOF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate equity concerns? A systematic review of current approaches. Presented at the 12th Annual ISPOR Conference; Paris, France; 24-27 October, 2009.
6.
HarrisJ. It’s not NICE to discriminate. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:373–5.
7.
PowersMFadenR. Inequalities in health, inequalities in health care: four generations of discussion about justice and costeffectiveness analysis. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2000;10:109–27.
8.
ChaseRLevinsonWHébertPC. The need for public engagement in choosing health priorities. CMAJ. 2010;8:165.
9.
MendelbergT. The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation. 2002;6:151–193.
10.
PettsJ. Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res. 2004;2:115–33.
11.
DanielsN. Accountability for reasonableness: establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. BMJ. 2000;321:1300–1.
12.
DanielsNSabinJE. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ. 2008;337:a1850.
13.
CulyerAJ. Deliberative Processes in Decisions about Health Care Technologies: Combining Different Types of Evidence, Values, Algorithms and People. London: Office of Health Economics;2009.
14.
DobrowMJChafeRBurchettHEDCulyerAJLemieuxCharlesL. Designing Deliberative Methods for Combining Heterogeneous Evidence: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Scan. A Report to the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation;2009.
15.
HopeT. Medical Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2004.
16.
CooksonRMcCabeCTsuchiyaA. Public healthcare resource allocation and the rule of rescue. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:540–4.
17.
CropperMLAydedeSKPortneyPR. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncertain. 1994;8:243–65.
18.
JohannessonMJohanssonP-O. Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. J Health Econ. 1997;16:589–99.
19.
Johansson-StenmanOMartinssonP. Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach. J Health Econ. 2008;27:739–52.
20.
LomasJCulyerAJMcCutcheonCMcAuleyLLawS. Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
21.
CulyerAJ. The Dictionary of Health Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2010.
22.
BrockDW. Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health care resources. In: Tan-Torres EdejertTBaltussenRAdamT., eds. Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. p 289–312.
23.
LaveryJVTinadanaPOScottTW. Towards a framework for community engagement in global health research. Trends Parasitol. 2010;26:279–83.
24.
ReuzelRPBvan der WiltGJten HaveHAMJde Vries RobbePF. Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med Health Care Philos. 1999;2:255–63.
