Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGabe, Jon
dc.contributor.authorChamberlain, Kerry
dc.contributor.authorNorris, Pauline
dc.contributor.authorDew, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorMadden, Helen
dc.contributor.authorHodgetts, Darrin
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-11T03:53:15Z
dc.date.available2012-10-11T03:53:15Z
dc.date.copyright2012-09
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationGabe, J., Chamberlain, K., Norris, P., Dew, K., Madden, H., & Hodgetts, D. (2012). The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’. Social Science & Medicine, 75 (12), 2353-2361.en_NZ
dc.identifier.issn0277-9536
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10289/6712
dc.description.abstractIn December 2008 the newly elected Prime Minister of New Zealand bypassed the agency that negotiates with manufacturers about the cost of medicines and agreed to fund Herceptin for women with early stage breast cancer for a twelve months course of treatment. This paper describes the unfolding of this decision and seeks to explain it in terms of the theory of countervailing powers, which has recently been applied to understand the rapid growth of medicines and the governance of the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the role of various actors in this debate about Herceptin funding, drawing on documentary analysis based on a systematic search of journals, websites and media databases. The case of Herceptin both confirms and questions the propositions of countervailing powers theory. On the one hand the manufacturers of the drug proved to be highly influential in their attempts to get Herceptin funded and were generally supported by consumer groups. On the other hand some scientists and regulators attempted to challenge the power of the manufacturers, with the regulators not showing signs of corporate bias as one might expect. Groups did not, as has been proposed, exert power monolithically, with several groups exhibiting opposing factions. The media, ignored in this literature, are considered as a potential countervailing force in the debate. In the end the government bypassed the recommendation of its regulators, thereby undermining the latter's efforts to act as a countervailing power.en_NZ
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevieren_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofSocial Science & Medicine
dc.subjectCountervailing powersen_NZ
dc.subjectHealth consumer groupsen_NZ
dc.subjectHerceptinen_NZ
dc.subjectMediaen_NZ
dc.subjectMedication controversiesen_NZ
dc.subjectNew Zealanden_NZ
dc.subjectPharmaceutical companiesen_NZ
dc.subjectRegulatorsen_NZ
dc.titleThe debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’en_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.009en_NZ
dc.relation.isPartOfSocial Science & Medicineen_NZ
pubs.begin-page2353en_NZ
pubs.elements-id38065
pubs.end-page2361en_NZ
pubs.issue12en_NZ
pubs.volume75en_NZ


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record