Health Policy and the Politics of Evidence
نویسندگان
چکیده
National decisions on the drugs, treatments and medical devices that should be funded through public expenditure are a fundamental element of health policy. But despite a political emphasis upon evidence-based policy, the results of rigorous clinical trials and statistical modelling techniques rarely speak for themselves. So, does the pre-eminence traditionally accorded to quantitative data in the medical field underpin policy decisions on a consistent basis? Or are more subtle, less transparent characteristics of context and interaction evident in the shaping of attendant decisions? This article considers these questions by drawing on a study of decision-making in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—an organization established by the British government in to decide whether selected health technologies should be made available throughout the National Health Service in England and Wales. In broad terms, the findings point to the primacy of arguments based on quantitatively oriented, experimentally derived data but also to a discursive hegemony of clinicians and health economists in mediating, including or debarring more qualitative, experientially based evidence. A more complex, dynamic understanding of policy governance in the field of health technology appraisal—founded on a discursive appropriation of the idea of the “common good”—goes some way to explaining the persistence of this hegemony despite an avowedly inclusive, plural approach to decision-making.
منابع مشابه
“Enemies of the People?” Public Health in the Era of Populist Politics; Comment on “The Rise of Post-truth Populism in Pluralist Liberal Democracies: Challenges for Health Policy”
In this commentary, we review the growth of populist politics, associated with exploitation of what has been termed fake news. We explore how certain words have been used in similar contexts historically, in particular the term “enemy of the people,” especially with regard to public health. We then set out 6 principles for public health professionals faced with these situations. First, using th...
متن کاملA Spanner in the Works? Anti-Politics in Global Health Policy; Comment on “A Ghost in the Machine? Politics in Global Health Policy”
The formulation of global health policy is political; and all institutions operating in the global health landscape are political. This is because policies and institutions inevitably represent certain values, reflect particular ideologies, and preferentially serve some interests over others. This may be expressed explicitly and consciously; or implicitly and unconsciously. But it’s important t...
متن کاملPolicy Capacity Meets Politics; Comment on “Health Reform Requires Policy Capacity”
It is difficult to disagree with the general argument that successful health reform requires a significant degree of policy capacity or that all players in the policy game need to move beyond self-interested advocacy. However, an overly broad definition of policy capacity is a problem. More important perhaps, health reform inevitably requires not just policy capacity but political leadership an...
متن کاملNavigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health
Global health research is essentially a normative undertaking: we use it to propose policies that ought to be implemented. To arrive at a normative conclusion in a logical way requires at least one normative premise, one that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone. But there is no widely accepted normative premise for global health, and the actors with the power to set policies may use...
متن کاملSharpening the Health Policy Analytical Rapier; Comment on “The Politics and Analytics of Health Policy”
This commentary on the Editorial ‘The politics and analytics of health policy’ by Professor Calum Paton focuses on two issues. First, it points to the unclear links between ideas, ideology, values, and discourse and policy, and warns that discourse is often a poor guide to enacted policy. Second, it suggests that realism, particularly ‘programme theory’ are useful tools for health policy analys...
متن کامل