Aversion to health inequalities and priority setting in health care

Traditionally aversion to health inequality is modelled through a concave utility function over health outcomes. Bleichrodt et al. [Bleichrodt, H., Diecidue E., Quiggin J., 2004. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. Journal of Health Economics 23, 157-171] have suggested a "dual" approach based on the introduction of explicit equity weights. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how priorities in health care are determined in the framework of these two models. It turns out that policy implications are highly sensitive to the choice of the model that will represent aversion to health inequality.     

Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden

This article describes the development of health technology assessment (HTA) in Sweden, its influence on decision making, and its link with priority setting. Sweden has a well established governmental HTA body, the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU), and an increasing number of regional/local HTA organizations. HTA has had an impact on clinical practice and is used to some extent in policy decisions. Several initiatives have now been taken to develop processes for open priority setting of health-care services. With the establishment of a new agency to undertake reimbursement decisions on pharmaceuticals, and greater patient and public involvement in decision making, it seems inevitable that HTA will play a more important role in priority setting in the near future.     

Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective

Background  Public involvement in health care decision making and priority setting in the UK is being promoted by recent policy initiatives. In 1993, the British Medical Association called for public consultation where rationing of services was to be undertaken. The approach to priority setting advocated by many health economists is the maximization of quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Typically, for a particular health care programme, the QALY calculation takes account of four features: (1) the number of patients receiving the programme, (2) the survival gain, (3) the gain in quality of life and, (4) the probability of treatment success. Only one feature, that relating to quality of life, is based upon public preferences. If the QALY is to be used as a tool for health care resource allocation at a societal level then it should incorporate broader societal preferences.
Methods  This study used an interview-based survey of 91 members of the general public to explore whether the traditional QALY maximization model is a good predictor of public responses to health care priority setting choices.
Results and conclusions  Many respondents did not choose consistently in line with a QALY maximization objective and were most influenced by quality of life concerns. There was little support for health care programmes that provided a prognostic improvement but left patients in relatively poor states of health. The level of respondent engagement in the survey exercise was not sensitive to the provision of supporting clinical information.     

Breastfeeding promotion and priority setting in health

An increase in exclusive breastfeeding prevalence can substantially reduce mortality and morbidity among infants. In this paper, estimates of the costs and impacts of three breastfeeding promotion programmes, implemented through maternity services in Brazil, Honduras and Mexico, are used to develop cost-effectiveness measures and these are compared with other health interventions. The results show that breastfeeding promotion can be one of the most cost-effective health interventions for preventing cases of diarrhoea, preventing deaths from diarrhoea, and gaining disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The benefits are substantial over a broad range of programme types. Programmes starting with the removal of formula and medications during delivery are likely to derive a high level of impact per unit of net incremental cost. Cost-effectiveness is lower (but still attractive relative to other interventions) if hospitals already have rooming-in and no bottle-feeds; and the cost-effectiveness improves as programmes become well-established. At an annual cost of about 30 to 40 US cents per birth, programmes starting with formula feeding in nurseries and maternity wards can reduce diarrhoea cases for approximately $0.65 to $1.10 per case prevented, diarrhoea deaths for $100 to $200 per death averted, and reduce the burden of disease for approximately $2 to $4 per DALY. Maternity services that have already eliminated formula can, by investing from $2 to $3 per birth, prevent diarrhoea cases and deaths for $3.50 to $6.75 per case, and $550 to $800 per death respectively, with DALYs gained at $12 to $19 each.     

User charges and priority setting in health care: balancing equity and efficiency

User charges are the major source of finance for many health care systems. However, traditional approaches to health care priority setting, such as cost-effectiveness analysis, usually assume there are no user charges and therefore may ignore important implications for equity and efficiency. This paper therefore develops a rudimentary model of priority setting in which the fixed health care budget can be augmented by user charges. The paper uses methods analogous to models of optimal commodity taxation to develop a set of rules for the inclusion of a health technology in the subsidized health care package, and the calculation of its associated copayment rate. The results indicate that optimal levels of subsidy depend on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, its price elasticity of demand, the epidemiology of the associated disease, and the policy maker's attitude towards equity. The model has important implications for policy making in three domains: health care priority setting, evaluation of health care technologies, and charging policy.     

Programme budgeting: an aid to planning and priority setting in health care

Programme budgeting can assist in overcoming some of the current problems besetting health care planning and management. In particular, health services suffer from lack of (i) explicit objectives; (ii) comprehensive overviews; (iii) knowledge of production functions; (iv) incentives for efficiency; and (v) inappropriate budgeting structures. Programme budgeting while not in itself capable of overcoming all these problems can create an information framework which first highlights but secondly fosters amelioration of these problems. In essence programme budgeting links outputs and inputs by health care programme. This facilitates monitoring, planning, control and the fostering of evaluation. Two examples of the use of programme budgets are presented.     

On priority setting in preventive care resources

Using an expected utility approach, we show that within a population that differs with respect to the probability of developing a disease, the allocation of preventive care resources should be prioritized based on the efficiency of prevention and not on whether individuals are at high or low risk of developing the disease. Should the efficiency of prevention be the same within the population, we show that the gravity of the disease, the presence of co-morbidities and the existence of uncertainty on health status can alternatively be considered so as to prioritize among preventive care resources. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges

BACKGROUND: Health organizations the world over are required to set priorities and allocate resources within the constraint of limited funding. However, decision makers may not be well equipped to make explicit rationing decisions and as such often rely on historical or political resource allocation processes. One economic approach to priority setting which has gained momentum in practice over the last three decades is program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). METHODS: This paper presents a detailed step by step guide for carrying out a priority setting process based on the PBMA framework. This guide is based on the authors' experience in using this approach primarily in the UK and Canada, but as well draws on a growing literature of PBMA studies in various countries. RESULTS: At the core of the PBMA approach is an advisory panel charged with making recommendations for resource re-allocation. The process can be supported by a range of 'hard' and 'soft' evidence, and requires that decision making criteria are defined and weighted in an explicit manner. Evaluating the process of PBMA using an ethical framework, and noting important challenges to such activity including that of organizational behavior, are shown to be important aspects of developing a comprehensive approach to priority setting in health care. CONCLUSION: Although not without challenges, international experience with PBMA over the last three decades would indicate that this approach has the potential to make substantial improvement on commonly relied upon historical and political decision making processes. In setting out a step by step guide for PBMA, as is done in this paper, implementation by decision makers should be facilitated.     

Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: actors and activities.

This article describes the actual situation at the beginning of 1999 with regard to identification and priority setting for health technology assessment (HTA) on a national level in the Netherlands. For this purpose the literature on HTA published in 1980-1998, mainly national, was thoroughly reviewed. Many policy documents and other reports from the 'grey literature' of identification and priority setting for HTA in the Netherlands were also used. The results show that attempts to identify and set priorities for HTA is a new activity in the Netherlands. The three most important actors in the field are the Health Council, the Council for Health Research and the Health Insurance Council. Methodologies differ depending on the content and scope of each programme. In addition, the methods used are not always transparent and the activities are not co-ordinated. The lack of co-ordination is due to the fact that there is no single organisation that is authorized to identify and set priorities for HTA. Suggestions for improving co-ordination are proposed with the aim of developing a truly national effort in this field, which will enable a more balanced and efficient set of HTA activities.     

Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment

ObjectiveTo describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia.ApproachThe processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting.FindingsTransparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity.ConclusionsPriority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens’ Jury.     

Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values

There is increasing interest, in the UK and elsewhere, in involving the public in health care priority setting. At the same time, however, there is evidence of lack of clarity about the objectives of some priority setting projects and also about the role of public involvement. Further, some projects display an apparent ignorance of both long-standing theoretical literature and practical experience of methodologies for eliciting values in health care and related fields. After a brief examination of the context of health care priority setting and public involvement, this paper describes a range of different approaches to eliciting values. These approaches are critically examined on a number of dimensions including the type of choice allowed to respondents and the implications of aggregation of values across individuals. Factors which affect the appropriateness of the different techniques to specific applications are discussed. A check-list of questions to be asked when selecting techniques is presented.     

International medical graduates in Dutch health care: the new assessment procedure

On December 1, 2005 in the Netherlands, a new procedure was introduced to assess international medical graduates (IMGs) with a diploma acquired outside the European Economic Area (EEA). This procedure includes (a) general tests on the active and passive use of Dutch medical language, English reading proficiency, basic IT skills and knowledge of the Dutch health care system, and (b) a specific set of tests of medical competence, including knowledge of basic sciences, clinical knowledge and clinical skills. IMGs who wish to get their diploma acknowledged and be registered as a physician are required to complete this assessment. With the introduction of this procedure, the Netherlands have joined a minority of countries inside and outside Europe with setting high standards for intake procedures. It is advocated that all European countries should devise such procedures, as a European Directive (2005/36/EC) on the recognition of professional qualifications prohibits the assessment of medical graduates with a diploma that is recognised in another EEA country.