Article in Medicine
Priority setting processes in health care take place in many countries (Rawlins and Culyer, 2004; US Senate, 2010) The rationale behind this is the scarcity of resources and the realization of societal goals. Niessen argues for a transparent process, combining notions of both fairness and efficiency
 
 
 

Many countries are in the process of formalizing the national priority setting process in health care at national and local levels (Rawlins and Culyer, 2004; Baltussen et al. 2010; Douw et al., 2006; US Senate, 2010; Peacock et al. 2006). Commonly, the agreed rationale behind such plans is the wish to attain societal welfare goals, while dealing with scarcity of resources in a fair, efficient, and transparent way.*

The objective is in one way or another to take difficult decisions of what is to be a priority in the implementation of health programs or, more specifically, what to include in a local or national health service package (Peacock et al, 2009; Baltussen et al, 2010). Within the UK, the Programme for Government ‘Freedom, Fairness, Responsibility’ of the new coalition government recently reconfirmed that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) is to be supported to arrive at value-based decisions in health care (Coalition, 2010). NICE itself is now reviewing its predominately efficiency-based, extra-welfarist cost per QALY reference case that it has adopted since its inception over 15 years ago. In the US, the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has introduced some new - now explicit - related elements in the priority setting debates in the United States. While it shows an, at least formal, emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency, it’s ‘comparative effectiveness’ approach excludes formal monetary efficiency thresholds such as in the UK or other European countries i.e. an amount that society is willing to pay for a health year gained.

A Case for Combining Equity and Efficiency

In spite of the acceptance of a common rationale, it is an understatement to conclude that there is less agreement on the criteria to be applied in such a decision making process as the debates on rationing health care continue to show. (Goold and Baum, 2008; Donaldson et al., 2008; Peacock et al. 2006). In addition to an effectiveness and efficiency criterion, typical criteria proposed are, from the clinical perspective, the severity of the disease (Michaels, 2006; Norheim OF, 2008) and, from the policy perspective, the societal distribution of disease and disability (Ferner et al. 2010). NICE is among the national agencies that has stated the formal inclusion of social values in the national policy process. (NICE-Citizen’s Council, 2008). Other criteria maybe applied locally as a result of local policy making despite high level national goals and these often lead to variations and trade-offs in regional health service delivery (Wilson et al. 2007).

The past decade has shown the development of systematic techniques to define the rational basis in the allocation of health services. Especially, new health economics research has been reported progress in desirability, methods and feasibility to include equity and other criteria in decision making in a variety of countries and settings. (Peacock et al. 2006, 2009; Green 2009; Baltussen, 2007, 2010; Green and Gerard, 2009; Koopmanschap et al. 2010; Douw et al., 2006; Jehu-Appiah et al. 2009; Baeten et al., 2010; Wilson et al. 2006). Various national proposals and experiences show a potentially substantial and important impact of these criteria on the traditional decision making that has been focused on safety and effectiveness. (Baeten et al, 2010).

We should learn about the scope of existing implicit and explicit criteria used in priority setting approaches in cross-national comparisons and assess how similar or disparate are these criteria. National-level policy makers with these in political arenas across the globe while formulating plans on the extension and distribution of health care services in environments with continuing constrained resources and increased demand. Most of the formulated criteria can be addressed through existing and tested techniques such as discrete choice experiments derived from conjoint analysis and other theories or studies of actual real-life decision making (Green and Gerard, 2009; Ruta et al. 2005; Ryan M, et al. ).

Towards Explicit Priority Criteria for Fairness

Given the diversity and similarities of across countries, one could argue in favor of a more explicit use of multiple criteria in policy making. This seems to be the case in older socialized health systems in Europe such as the UK, especially at local commissioning levels (PCTS) , where decisions are taken with regard to multiple criteria and where MCDA is now under wider consideration at national level (Wilson et al, 2007). When a country needs to design packages for health issues or evaluate the health system for equity and efficiency, a explicit approach to priority setting may be a valuable tool within the formal context of a deliberative process, as also has been concluded in a review of policy making in high-income countries (Peacock et al., 2006). These results show relationships between preferences for attributes that are considered representative of equity or efficiency that may assist stakeholders to make decisions, although the value of their actual weights, of course, will value from country to country, level and stage of decision making, and, possibly, the type of health area under consideration. Additionally, the way in which a criterion is defined (for example, there are many ways of defining equity) will determine what weight it ultimately carries in the decision process. However, these present experiences are only starting point for further formalizing the rationales of decision makers when making health decisions and, additionally, add to the further development of a rational public and participatory policy process in the future. As health care demands will grow, with growing markets, increasing health care needs and increasing aging of populations, the debates will become ever more heated.

There are preference differences for equity and efficiency and these vary across countries. While this may seem like an obvious result to many, it is worth looking at where commonalities and differences may exist for the joint implementation of international health initiatives across the globe, in support of countries that cannot support their own health systems, yet. These preferences undoubtedly reflect the relationships between health and economic growth, including available household budgets, and will always, to some degree, be moderated by political views on distribution of health benefits of the moment. Nonetheless, it would help countries reflect on the state of their efficiency/equity trade-offs in health practice. Health decisions are made taking into account many more factors other than equity and efficiency. Here, we have focused on criteria classified as either equity or efficiency; however, the “other” factors such as organizational and implementation criteria could be a significant influence in decision-making.

In sum, in addition to the use of the effectiveness and the efficiency criterion, we observe that various criteria of fairness play a role in health decision making in the countries that we know across the globe. The past ten years, there has been methodological progress in addressing these elements in policy decisions e.g. in the United Kingdom (Wilson et al. ibid). Here, and elsewhere, further policy debate is taking place as to the relative balance which has, until now, seen efficiency at the national level override local equity and other policy imperatives. Research increasingly present more insights in the minds of various population groups and policy makers. Its findings help to formalize the weighing of criteria further. This will have to be part of a formal transparent process combining fairness and efficiency in health decisions not just in policy making but also, ultimately, in day-to-day settings for real life people.

* The contributions of Andrew Mirelman, Rob Baltussen, Ric Fordham, Francesco Paoluci are acknowledged.

References

Baeten SA, Baltussen RM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Bridges J, Niessen LW: Incorporating Equity-Efficiency Interactions in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis -Three Approaches Applied to Breast Cancer Control. Value Health. 2010 Mar 31 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00718.

Baltussen R, Asbroek A, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen L, Priority Setting Using Multiple Criteria: Should a Lung Health Programme be Implemented in Nepal. Health Policy and Planning 22: 177-185, 2007

Baltussen R, Youngkonga S, Paolucci F, Niessen LW: Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy. 2010 Mar. Epub PMID: 20206403

Coalition: Our programme for government – freedom, fairness, responsibility. HMG Government, United Kingdom. http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf. Accessed June 2010.

Culyer AJ: The bogus conflict between efficiency and vertical equity. Health Econ. 2006 Nov; 15(11):1155-8.

Donaldson C, Bate A, Brambleby P, Waldner H.Moving forward on rationing: an economic view. BMJ. 2008 Oct 9;337

Douw K, Vondeling H, Oortwijn W.: Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: views of health care stakeholders and health economists. Health Policy. 2006 May; 76(3):334-45.

Ferner RE, Hughes DA, Aronson JK. NICE and new: appraising innovation. BMJ. 2010 Jan 5; 340.

Goold SD, Baum NM. Where are we in the rationing debate? BMJ. 2008 Oct 10; 337.

Green C and Gerard K: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009 Aug; 18(8):951-76.

Green C. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities. Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun; 68(12):2247-55.

Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d'Almeida SA, Bosu WK, Koolman X, Lauer J, Osei D, Adjei S. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Value Health. 2008 Dec; 11(7):1081-7.

Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X: Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Apr; 26(2):198-204.

Michaels JA. Improving NICE's social value judgments. BMJ. 2006 Jan 7; 332(7532):48-50.

NICE – Citizens’ Council (2008): Social value judgments. Accessed May 2010 http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf

Norheim OF: Clinical priority setting. BMJ. 2008 Oct 9; 337.

Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C: Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods, Health Policy 92, no. 2-3 (10, 2009): 124-132

Peacock S, Ruta D, Mitton C, Donaldson C, Bate A, Murtagh M: Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities. BMJ 2006 Feb 25; 332(7539):482-5.

Rawlins MD and Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224-7.

Roemer M: National Health Systems as Market Interventions, Journal of Public Health Policy 10, no. 1 (1989): 62-77.

Ruta D, Mitton C, Bate A, Donaldson C: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: bridging the divide between doctors and managers. BMJ. 2005 Jun 25; 330(7506):1501-3.

Ryan M, Gerard K: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003; 2(1):55-64. Review.

US Senate: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2010. http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Wilson E, Rees J & Fordham RJ. 2006 ‘Developing a prioritization framework in an English Primary Care Trust’ Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (17.2.06), 4:3

Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod & Fordham RJ. 2007 ‘Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust’ J. Health Services Research and Policy Vol.12, No.2 April 2007.

 

No Worries, We Are NOT Affected By The OpenSSL Bug

We do not use OpenSSL here at BestThinking.com or ThinkerBooks.com. No need to worry or change passwords here because of the widely-publicized Heartbleed Bug.

Close
Professor Louis Niessen Identity Verified

About the Author 

Professor Louis Niessen
Louis Niessen, MD is a professor International Health and Health Economics at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and University of W

Recent Content by Professor Louis Niessen

Fairness and Efficiency in Health Care Decisions

Priority setting processes in health care take place in many countries (Rawlins and Culyer, 2004; US Senate, 2010) The rationale behind this is the scarcity of resources and the realization of societal goals. Niessen argues for a transparent process, combining notions of both fairness and efficiency

 
Latest Ebooks