The rationing debate. Defining a package in healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case against.
作者信息
Klein R
机构信息
King's Fund Policy Institute, London.
出版信息
BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):506-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.503.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The rationing debate. Defining a package in healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case against.配给制辩论。界定国民保健制度所负责的医疗服务包。反对的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):506-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.503.
2
The rationing debate. Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case for.配给制辩论。界定国民保健制度所负责的一揽子医疗服务。支持理由。
BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):503-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498.
3
The rationing debate. Rationing within the NHS should be explicit. The case against.配给制辩论。国民医疗服务体系内的配给制应该是明确的。反对的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Apr 12;314(7087):1118-22. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1118.
4
The rationing debate. Rationing within the NHS should be explicit. The case for.配给制辩论。国民医疗服务体系内的配给制应该是明确的。支持的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Apr 12;314(7087):1114-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1114.
5
Rationing in health care.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998 Jan;3(1):58-9. doi: 10.1177/135581969800300112.
6
The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.英国国家医疗服务体系中的配给议程。配给议程小组。
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1593-601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1593.
7
The rationing debate. Central government should have a greater role in rationing decisions. The case against.配给制辩论。中央政府在配给决策中应发挥更大作用。反对观点。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 29;314(7085):970-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7085.970.
8
Where are we in the rationing debate?在资源分配的辩论中，我们处于什么立场？
BMJ. 2008 Oct 10;337:a2047. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2047.
9
Desperately seeking solutions: rationing dilemmas in health care.急切寻求解决方案：医疗保健中的配给困境
Aust Health Rev. 1993;16(2):130-47.
10
The rationing debate. Central government should have a greater role in rationing decisions. The case for.配给制辩论。中央政府在配给决策中应发挥更大作用。支持理由。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 29;314(7085):967-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7085.967.
引用本文的文献
1
Rationing in health systems: A critical review.卫生系统中的配给：批判性综述。
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 Aug 27;31:47. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.31.47. eCollection 2017.
2
The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.在加拿大，癌症药物报销中临床、经济、患者价值观和可行性标准的相对重要性：对 2011-2017 年加拿大泛癌种药物评审建议的揭示偏好分析。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Apr;36(4):467-475. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0.
3
The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison.泛加拿大肿瘤药物评审成员与加拿大公众的优先排序偏好：一项陈述偏好比较
Curr Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(5):322-328. doi: 10.3747/co.23.3033. Epub 2016 Oct 25.
4
[Rationing in medicine from the economic viewpoint].
Med Klin (Munich). 1999 Feb 15;94(2):110-5. doi: 10.1007/BF03044712.
Zotero 插件