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

Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining ‘success’ and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members

Coronavirus: Where Has All the Health Economics Gone?

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to unfold there is an untold number of trade-offs being made in every country around the globe. The experience in the United Kingdom and Canada to date has not seen much uptake of health economics methods. We provide some thoughts on how this could take place, specifically in three areas. Firstly, this can involve understanding the impact of lockdown policies on national productivity. Secondly, there is great importance in studying trade-offs with respect to enhancing health system capacity and the impact of the mix of private-public financing. Finally, there are key trade-offs that will continue to be made both in terms of access to testing and ventilators which would benefit greatly from economic appraisal. In short, health economics could – and we would argue most certainly should – play a much more prominent role in policy-making as it relates to the current as well as future pandemics

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

Reflecting on backward design for knowledge translation Comment on “A call for a backward design to knowledge translation”

In a recent Editorial for this journal, El-Jardali and Fadlallah proposed a new framework for Knowledge Translation (KT) in healthcare. Many such frameworks already exist; thus, new entrants to the field must be scrutinized in regard to their unique contributions to advancing understanding and practice. The El-Jardali and Fadlallah framework focuses on policy-level discussions, a relatively under-studied issue to date. Their framework usefully incorporates both priority setting questions at the front-end (which KT efforts get undertaken and which do not) as well as evaluation questions at the back-end (how do we show that more evidence-informed decisions are actually better ones?). Their framework also emphasizes capacity building among both decision-makers and researchers. This is an area worthy of additional attention, particularly because it is likely to be far more challenging than El-Jardali and Fadlallah allow