Evidence-Based Medicine as an Instrument for Rational Health Policy
Abstract
This article tries to present a broad view on the values and ethical issues that are at stake in efforts to rationalize health policy on the basis of economic evaluations (like cost-effectiveness analysis) and randomly controlled clinical trials. Though such a rationalization is generally seen as an objective and 'value free' process, moral values often play a hidden role, not only in the production of 'evidence', but also in the way this evidence is used in policy making. For example, the definition of effectiveness of medical treatment or health care service is heavily dependent on dominant individual or social views about the goals of the particular treatment or service. There is also a concern that a reliance on EBM in health policy will occur at the expense of widely shared social values like equity and solidarity. Moreover, there is a concern that when economic considerations and rational procedures become more influential, various 'outside' groups third parties like insurance companies and policy makers will get a stronger influence on medical practice which may lead to a change in the patient-provider relationship. The authors conclude that social values and patient preference should be explicitly addressed when health policy making is based on economic and other scientific evidence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
EBDM by its nature assumes a degree of individual rationality in the decision process on the part of decision makers.
“While EBDM offers potential value in enhancing public policy, by its nature it assumes a degree of individual rationality in the decision process on the part of decision makers [16,24,41,42].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [24]
Decision-making research has shown that relevant data may be distorted and/or ignored while decision processing is occurring.
“However, decision-making research has shown that relevant data may be distorted and/or ignored while decision processing is occurring [24,42-44].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [24]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Biller-Andorno, N., Lie, R. K., & ter Meulen, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Bergen (NO)
- ORCID
- Lie, Reidar K.
- Venue
- Health Care Analysis
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-275
- ISSN
- 1065-3058 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3394
- OpenAlex
- W1548189653
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 12.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Health Care Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- GRO (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- evidence-based medicine, health policy, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic evaluation, value neutrality, social values, equity, solidarity, patient preferences, insurance companies, patient-provider relationship
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Drug Industry, Ethics, Medical, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Humans, Insurance, Health, State Medicine, Health Care Rationing, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review