Comparing Public and Provider Preferences for Setting Healthcare Priorities: Evidence From Kuwait

Abstract

As attempts are made to allocate health resources more efficiently, understanding the acceptability of these changes is essential. This study aims to compare the priorities of the public with those of health service providers in Kuwait. It also aims to compare the perceptions of both groups regarding key health policies in the country. Members of the general public and a sample of health service providers, including physicians, dentists, nurses, and technicians, were randomly selected to complete a structured, self-administered questionnaire. They were asked to rank health services by their perceived importance, rank preferred sources of additional health funding, and share their perceptions of the current allocation of health resources, including current healthcare spending choices and the adequacy of total resources allocated to healthcare. They were also asked for their perception of the current local policies on sending patients abroad for certain types of treatments and the policy of providing private health insurance for retirees. The response rate was above 75% for both groups. A higher tax on cigarettes was preferred by 73% of service providers as a source of additional funding for healthcare services, while 59% of the general public group chose the same option. When asked about the sufficiency of public sector health funding, 26.5% of the general public thought that resources were sufficient to meet all healthcare needs, compared with 40% of service providers. The belief that the public should be offered more opportunities to influence health resource allocation was held by 56% of the general public and 75% of service providers. More than half of the respondents from both groups believed that the policy on sending patients abroad was expensive, misused, and politically driven. Almost 64% of the general public stated that the provision of private health insurance for retirees was a ‘good’ policy, while only 34% of service providers agreed with this statement. This study showed similarities and differences between the general public and health service providers’ preferences. Both groups showed a preference for treating the young rather than the old. The general public preferred more expensive health services that had immediate effects rather than health promotion activities with delayed benefits and health services for the elderly. These findings suggest that the general public may not accept common allocative efficiency improvements in public health spending unless the challenges in this sector and the gains from reallocation are clearly communicated.