12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.

          To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. The two committees and their 26 members. Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings. Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions. These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making.

            There are a number of impulses towards public participation in health care decision making including instrumentalist, communitarian, educative and expressive impulses and the desire for increased accountability. There has, however, been little research looking systematically at the public's preferences for being involved in particular types of rationing decisions, nor indeed, has there been a critical examination of the degree of involvement desired by the public. The research reported here uses findings from focus groups and in-depth interviews to explore these questions. Eight focus groups were conducted with a total of 57 informants, four amongst randomly selected members of the public and four with informants from health and non-health related organisations. Nineteen interviews were conducted to allow the elaboration of focus group comments, to probe views more deeply and to pursue emerging themes. The findings show variations in the willingness of members of the public to be involved in health care decisions and consistency across the different forms of the public as represented by the focus groups with randomly selected citizens and pre-existing organisations. There was a strong desire in all the groups for the public to be involved both at the system and programme levels, with much less willingness to be involved at the individual level. At the system and programme levels informants generally favoured consultation, without responsibility for decisions, but with the guarantee that their contribution would be heard and that decisions taken following consultation would be explained. At the patient level informants felt that the public should participate only by setting criteria for deciding between potential beneficiaries of treatment. The public has much to contribute, particularly at the system and programme levels, to supplement the inputs of health care professionals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers.

              The aims of this study were, within three Canadian health regions, to identify existing resource management techniques, to elicit ways in which the current process of setting priorities could be improved and to determine if an economic framework, used internationally, would have merit in Canada. Structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 62 of 73 key decision makers. This sample included all senior executives and medical directors involved in setting priorities. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were utilised. Key decision makers reported that a clear process of setting priorities does not exist. Allocation of resources generally occurs on the basis of historical trends; only 22% of participants stated that the process works well. Respondents were critical of the lack of transparency and a lack of meaningful inclusion of physicians in the priority setting process. Overall, 92% of respondents indicated that program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) would be an appropriate and useful priority setting framework. Given the political and historical influence in the process of priority setting and resource allocation, an evidence-based approach, like PBMA which explicitly attempts to identify ways of maximising health benefit within a limited budget, should have merit in the new regional structure in Canada.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-7547
                2004
                22 April 2004
                : 2
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Healthcare Innovation & Improvement, B.C. Research Institute for Children's and Women's Health, and Dept. of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
                [2 ]Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population & Health Sciences and Business School (Economics), University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                Article
                1478-7547-2-3
                10.1186/1478-7547-2-3
                411060
                15104792
                af6281f3-b6e0-44a0-91ce-930ae5a3fd89
                Copyright © 2004 Mitton and Donaldson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
                History
                : 3 February 2004
                : 22 April 2004
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                marginal analysis,priority setting,program budgeting
                Public health
                marginal analysis, priority setting, program budgeting

                Comments

                Comment on this article