Communal Sharing and the Provision of Low-Volume High-Cost Health Services: Results of a Survey.

Abstract

IntroductionThis paper suggests and tests a reason why the public might support the funding of services for rare diseases (SRDs) when the services are effective but not cost effective, i.e. when more health could be produced by allocating funds to other services. It is postulated that the fairness of funding a service is influenced by a comparison of the average patient benefit with the average cost to those who share the cost.MethodsSurvey respondents were asked to allocate a budget between cost-effective services that had a small effect upon a large number of relatively well patients and SRDs that benefited a small number of severely ill patients but were not cost effective because of their high cost.ResultsPart of the budget was always allocated to the SRDs. The budget share rose with the number sharing the cost.DiscussionSharing per se appears to characterise preferences. This has been obscured in studies that focus upon cost per patient rather than cost per person sharing the cost.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41669-016-0002-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.