Abstract
BackgroundPrioritization of medical technologies requires a multi-dimensional view. Often, conflicting equity and efficiency criteria should be reconciled. The most dramatic manifestation of such conflict is in the prioritization of new medical technologies asking for public finance performed yearly by the Israeli Basket Committee. The aim of this paper is to compare the revealed preferences of the 2006/7 Basket Committee’s members with the declared preferences of health policy-makers in Israel.MethodsWe compared the ranking of a sample of 18 accepted and 16 rejected technologies evaluated by the 2006/7 Basket Committee with the ranking of these technologies as predicted based on the preferences of Israeli health policy-makers. These preferences were elicited by a recent Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) which estimated the relative weights of four equity and three efficiency criteria. The candidate technologies were characterized by these seven criteria, and their ranking was determined. A third comparative ranking of these technologies was the efficiency ranking, which is based on international data on cost per QALY gained.ResultsThe Committee’s ranking of all technologies show no correspondence with the policy-makers’ ranking. The correlation between the two is negative when only accepted technologies are ranked. The Committee’s ranking is positively correlated with the efficiency ranking, while the health policy-makers’ ranking is not.DiscussionThe Committee appeared to assign to efficiency considerations a higher weight than assigned by health policy-makers. The main explanation is that while policy-makers’ ranking is based on stated preferences, that of the Committee reflects revealed preferences. Real life prioritization, made under a budget constraint, enhances the importance of efficiency considerations at the expense of equity ones.ConclusionsIn order for Israeli health policy to be consistent and well coordinated across policy-makers, some discussions and exchanges are needed, to arrive at a common set of preferences with respect to equity and efficiency considerations.
Highlights
Prioritization of medical technologies requires a multi-dimensional view
The Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health, Jerusalem, Israel is measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as is the case in economic assessments of health technologies, efficiency is identified with the maximization of QALYs
The prioritization of new technologies submitted for public finance, expected from the Basket Committee, is the most dramatic manifestation of the tension between equity and efficiency considerations in health policy
Summary
Prioritization of medical technologies requires a multi-dimensional view. Often, conflicting equity and efficiency criteria should be reconciled. There is a traditional and long-standing tension in economics and public policy between efficiency - defined as the maximization of welfare - and equity, which includes considerations of equality, the distribution of welfare and social justice. Policy-makers try to reconcile between efficiency and equity considerations when formulating health policy [2]. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
