Health Affairs, 22, no. 1 (2003): 125-137 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.125 © 2003 by Project HOPE	New Online   Pay Cuts For Medicare Docs   Access To Care Woes   Public Coverage More Efficient   Empowering Consumers

This Article Full Text (HTML) Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Daniels, N. Articles by Sabin, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Daniels, N. Articles by Sabin, J. E. Related Collections Ethical Issues Pharmaceuticals

Pharmacy Benefits

An Ethical Template For Pharmacy Benefits

We propose an ethical template for pharmacy benefits and a fair process for using it. The template delineates four levels of decisions about pharmacy coverage, connecting ethically acceptable types of rationales for limits with decisions made at each level. It provides a framework for organizing ethically relevant reasons for coverage (or the tiered copayments). The process for using the template assures accountability for the reasonableness of benefit decisions. It requires transparency and relevance of rationales for limit setting and revisability of decisions, including through fair procedures for appeals. The template and the process facilitate broader public learning about fair limit setting.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. P. Browman, B. Manns, N. Hagen, C. R. Chambers, A. Simon, and S. Sinclair 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2008; 4(1): 2 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Calfee Can Quality-Adjusted Life Year Avoidance Help in Oncology Drug Reimbursement Decisions? J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2008; 4(1): 8 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Teagarden and M. K. Wynia Ensuring fairness in coverage decisions: Applying the American Medical Association Ethical Force Program's consensus report to managed care pharmacy. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., September 15, 2006; 63(18): 1749 - 1754. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G. Morgan, M. McMahon, C. Mitton, E. Roughead, R. Kirk, P. Kanavos, and D. Menon Centralized drug review processes in australia, Canada, new zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff., March 1, 2006; 25(2): 337 - 347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Daniels and J. Sabin Comment Clinical Trials, February 1, 2004; 1(1): 116 - 117. [PDF]