Health technology insurance coverage decisions require reasonable requirements, for example, the necessity a technology succeed, efficient, legitimate in purpose, acceptable in its results, safe etc. la prise de 136668-42-3 dcision requiert non seulement des preuves, mais aussi des normes. Les dcideurs doivent prciser leurs valeurs C qui s’appliquent de fa?on gnrale C sur ce est suffisamment bon , avant de pouvoir valuer une technologie en particulier. Dans cet content : (1) on dcrit les principales taches d’analyse ncessaires afin de dfinir les critres quantitatifs et de safety et leurs put les dcisions family members la safety, et (3) on examine l’utilisation stratgique de telles normes, NOP27 de mme que certains des dfis qu’elles posent. Le problme de l’identification de normes conomiques sera utilis put illustrer des enjeux majeurs. On avance qu’une comprhension des normes fonde sur les prcdents est pertinente dans le contexte des politiques canadiennes, o l’quit est essentielle. Des tudes de prises de 136668-42-3 dcision relles cherchent des normes de fa qui?on inductive ont fait fausse path en insistant sur les tendances centrales et en ngligeant les aberrations (prcdents), alors que les analyses dductives et les rgles empiriques n’taient pas fondes dans les valeurs prdominantes. Good general public policy decisions require fair criteria and procedures. Many physiques billed with producing decisions on wellness technology insurance coverage shoot for even more organized right now, transparent and evidence-based bases 136668-42-3 for his or her suggestions. Common requirements for judging fresh technologies consist of, for example, performance, efficiency and safety. A fuller group of requirements normally contains both quantitative factors of how well a technology performs and categorical factors concerning the appropriateness of its reasons and results. To formulate an evaluative common sense, decision-makers must gather and interpret proof concerning each criterion. The jump from proof to decision needs standards. That’s, beyond the data of how great confirmed technology can be, evaluators need pre-formed ideas about how exactly good will be sufficient and what types of technologies will be the good types. This paper outlines crucial analytic tasks involved with applying requirements and proof to insurance coverage decisions in virtually any context in which a organized, evidence-based approach can be pursued. Particular interest is directed at the task of defining specifications C the underappreciated ideals that link proof to decisions. Requirements, Specifications and Proof WILL VARY Issues It’s important to tell apart among requirements, specifications and proof in evidence-based decision-making. A is an over-all rule (e.g., performance) where we worth any wellness technology. can be evaluative info that tells us how installing or great a specific technology can be, with regards to confirmed criterion (e.g., study evidence of performance). are ideals that indicate how great would be sufficient to be eligible for insurance coverage (e.g., how effective works well enough). The 136668-42-3 type, advancement and software of specifications offers received small plan analytic interest comparatively. evaluation requirements are assessed and indicated in numerical conditions. Probably the most familiar of the are efficiency and effectiveness; others consist of safety, efficacy, spending budget impact, most likely demand and disease burden. Because quantitative proof is expressed like a matter of level, quantitative standards consider the form of this distinguish adequate systems from inadequate types C for instance, a relative threat of <0.5 or >2.0 like a compelling impact size for just about any treatment (GRADE Functioning Group 2004). Applying such specifications to decisions is easy: if the technology’s efficiency can be above a threshold level, it goes by that criterion and could qualify for insurance coverage. requirements are the ones that need even more descriptive information. A good example is the reason for a technology: could it be precautionary or curative, for life-saving or lifestyle? Can it provide treatment or info? Does it focus on special requirements of the indegent, elderly or kids? Some classes (e.g., whether a.