The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy

In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation

The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy

Abstract In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation

The Qualitative Descriptive Approach in International Comparative Studies: Using Online Qualitative Surveys

International comparative studies constitute a highly valuable contribution to public policy research. Analysing different policy designs offers not only a mean of knowing the phenomenon itself but also gives us insightful clues on how to improve existing practices. Although much of the work carried out in this realm relies on quantitative appraisal of the data contained in international databases or collected from institutional websites, countless topics may simply not be studied using this type of methodological design due to, for instance, the lack of reliable databases, sparse or diffuse sources of information, etc. Here then we discuss the use of the qualitative descriptive approach as a methodological tool to obtain data on how policies are structured. We propose the use of online qualitative surveys with key stakeholders from each relevant national context in order to retrieve the fundamental pieces of information on how a certain public policy is addressed there. Starting from Sandelowski’s seminal paper on qualitative descriptive studies, we conduct a theoretical reflection on the current methodological proposition. We argue that a researcher engaged in this endeavour acts like a composite-sketch artist collecting pieces of information from witnesses in order to draw a valid depiction of reality. Furthermore, we discuss the most relevant aspects involving sampling, data collection and data analysis in this context. Overall, this methodological design has a great potential for allowing researchers to expand the international analysis of public policies to topics hitherto little appraised from this perspective

The Qualitative Descriptive Approach in International Comparative Studies: Using Online Qualitative Surveys

Abstract International comparative studies constitute a highly valuable contribution to public policy research. Analysing different policy designs offers not only a mean of knowing the phenomenon itself but also gives us insightful clues on how to improve existing practices. Although much of the work carried out in this realm relies on quantitative appraisal of the data contained in international databases or collected from institutional websites, countless topics may simply not be studied using this type of methodological design due to, for instance, the lack of reliable databases, sparse or diffuse sources of information, etc. Here then we discuss the use of the qualitative descriptive approach as a methodological tool to obtain data on how policies are structured. We propose the use of online qualitative surveys with key stakeholders from each relevant national context in order to retrieve the fundamental pieces of information on how a certain public policy is addressed there. Starting from Sandelowski’s seminal paper on qualitative descriptive studies, we conduct a theoretical reflection on the current methodological proposition. We argue that a researcher engaged in this endeavour acts like a composite-sketch artist collecting pieces of information from witnesses in order to draw a valid depiction of reality. Furthermore, we discuss the most relevant aspects involving sampling, data collection and data analysis in this context. Overall, this methodological design has a great potential for allowing researchers to expand the international analysis of public policies to topics hitherto little appraised from this perspective

Describing practices of priority setting in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

Spending in health care have grown considerably over the last decades in all developed countries. Aging populations and novel technologies are usually deemed as the main drivers for such unsustainable trend in the finances of health systems. In this scenario, setting priorities for investments becomes a central concern. Making hard choices in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent, legitimate, and fair manner has constituted an increasingly important target. Notwithstanding the voluminous body of literature in this area, most of work focus on developing and improving prescriptive approaches as well as presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries. An online qualitative survey was used with decision makers and academics from 18 countries. Four hundred and fifty individuals were invited and 58 answered the survey questionnaire. We found that resource allocation in health care has been still largely done based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the wide understanding that decisions must be formally based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by participants as a formal strategy of priority setting. Several approaches have been tested and published, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but there is limited evidence of their continuous and systematic use by health organizations across countries. A point of increasing convergence is the reliance of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options. Disinvestment frameworks are very rare and the topic itself has only started to appear with any regularity. This work represents the first attempt to identify existing practices of priority setting in a systematic way through a qualitative descriptive study. Despite its methodological limitations, it provides a better understanding of the current scenario of policy making and research in this field.Medicine, Faculty ofPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofGraduat

Polypharmacy among older Brazilians. prevalence, factors associated, and sociodemographic disparities (ELSI-Brazil)

Background: Polypharmacy has become an increasingly public health issue as population age and novel drugs are developed. Yet, evidence on low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is still scarce. Objective: This work aims to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy among Brazilians aged 50 and over, and investigate associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the baseline assessment of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative study of persons aged 50 years and older (n=9,412). Univariate and bivariate analyses described the sample. Robust Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and predict probabilities of polypharmacy. Results: Prevalence of polypharmacy was estimated at 13.5% among older adults in Brazil. Important disparities were observed in regard to gender (16.1% among women and 10.5% among men), race (16.0% among whites and 10.1% among blacks) and geographic region (ranging from 5.1% in the North to 18.7% in the South). The multivariate analysis showed that polypharmacy is associated with various sociodemographic/individual factors (age, gender, race, education, region, health status, body mass index) as well as with several variables of healthcare access/utilization (number of visits, same physician, provider’s knowledge of patient’s medications, gate-keeper, and difficulty managing own medication). Overall, the more utilization of health services, the higher the probability of polypharmacy, after adjusting for all other model covariates. Conclusions: Polypharmacy prevalence is relatively low in Brazil, compared to European countries. After controlling for variables of healthcare need and demographic characteristics, there is still substantial residual variance in polypharmacy prevalence. Policies to identify inappropriate prescribing and reduce regional discrepancies are necessary

Assessing value in health care: using an interpretive classification system to understand existing practices based on a systematic review

Background: Implementing adequate strategies to assess the value of health services plays a central role in the effort to deal with the financial pressures faced by health care systems worldwide. This study aimed to understand which approaches to value assessment have been used in developed countries. Methods: We conducted a rapid review and a gray literature search to identify value assessment frameworks. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. In addition, we developed an interpretive classification system to make sense of existing approaches. Results: One thousand one hundred seventy-six references were identified and 38 papers were selected for full-review. Among these 38 articles, 22 distinct approaches to assess value of health care interventions were identified and classified according to four points: 1) use of single or multiple considerations to base value estimates; 2) use of disease-specific or generic criteria; 3) reliance on process-based or outcomes-based consideration; and 4) type of input and evidence considered. Conclusions: The contextual nature of value assessment in health care becomes evident with the diversity of existing approaches. Despite the predominance of cases relying on the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the measure of value, this approach has not been sufficient to meet the needs of decision-makers. The use of multiple criteria has become more and more important, as well as the consideration of patient-reported measures. Considerations of costs are not always explicit and consistent.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofReviewedFacult

Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

Background: Healthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research. Methods: An online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate). Results: We found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options. Conclusions: Efforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofReviewedFacult