Explicit Priority Setting Research Articles

Good conduct in a context of rationing: A case study of how frontline professionals deal with distributive dilemmas of novel gene therapies.

Classical dilemmas of how to distribute limited resources have been rekindled by the rise of advanced, high-cost therapies. Building on a case study of a novel gene therapy in neuropaediatric care, this article explores the dilemmas that explicit priority setting can create for frontline professionals and develops a typology of professionals' responses to these dilemmas. Despite political attempts to centralise priority setting and spare health professionals from having to consider treatment costs at the 'bedside', this study shows that concern for economic efficiency and budget control nonetheless need to be handled and balanced against other accountabilities in the daily work of frontline professionals. Contributing to the sociological debate on priority setting and rationing, this study develops an analytical perspective attuned to the relational aspects of frontline work and the challenges related to the balancing of diverging ideas of good conduct. Further, focussing on an empirical field at the forefront of genomic medicine, this study brings the sociological debate on priority setting and rationing up to date with current developments in precision medicine.

What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches – one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.

Assessing health system challenges and opportunities for better noncommunicable disease outcomes: the case of Mauritius

BackgroundThe objectives of the study reported in this paper were: (a) to score the coverage of core NCD population-based interventions and individual services in Mauritius; (b) to analyse and score the presence of 15 common health system challenges that impede delivery of core NCD interventions and services in Mauritius; and (c) to provide policy recommendations for Mauritius to address health system barriers to delivery of NCD interventions and services.MethodsThe Mauritius country assessment applied the guidelines developed by the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe for systematically scoring coverage of NCD interventions and assessing health system challenges for improving NCD outcomes. The assessment used qualitative research design approach.ResultsOf the 24 core population-based interventions for addressing key NCD risk factors, 16.7% were rated extensive, 37.5% moderate and 45.8% limited. Three (20%), 8 (53%) and 4 (27%) of the 15 individual/personal CVD, diabetes and cancer services were rated extensive, moderate and limited respectively. The top five health system challenges hampering scale-up of coverage of population-based NCD interventions in Mauritius were inadequate interagency cooperation; limited application of explicit priority setting approaches; inadequate change management; sub-optimal distribution and mix human resources; insufficient population empowerment; and insufficient political commitment. The top five challenges had average scores of between 3.1 (interagency cooperation) and 2.4 (distribution and mix of human resources).The top five health system challenges constraining expansion in coverage of individual NCD services were limited integration of evidence into practice; limited use of explicit priority-setting approaches; inadequate application of information and technology solutions; insufficient population empowerment; and sub-optimal distribution and mix of human resources. The top five challenges for individual interventions had mean scores varying between 2.6 (integration of evidence into practice) and 1.7 (distribution and mix of human resources).ConclusionsMauritius needs to increase its domestic general government investments into the national health system and requisite multi-sectoral action to address the priority health system challenges with a view of bridging the existing gaps in coverage of NCD population-based interventions and individual services.

What should guide priority setting in health care? A study of public preferences in Sweden

Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable.
 Published: Online December 2019

How does priority setting for resource allocation happen in commissioning dental services in a nationally led, regionally delivered system: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with NHS England dental commissioners

ObjectivesTo understand approaches to priority setting for healthcare service resource allocation at an operational level in a nationally commissioned but regionally delivered service.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and a Framework...

A three-country survey of public attitudes towards the use of rationing criteria to set healthcare priorities between patients

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore and compare citizens’ attitudes in Portugal, Bulgaria and Croatia towards rationing criteria that should support an explicit priority setting process at the micro level.Design/methodology/approachPreferences were collected through an online questionnaire containing 14 statements concerning lottery, economic and person-based priority criteria. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each criterion. Non-parametric tests were applied to compare the levels of agreement among 355, 298 and 243 Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents, respectively.FindingsThe three groups of respondents appear to be concerned with both a fair and efficient allocation of resources. The severity of health conditions and patient’s age were the criteria most accepted by the respondents. This study suggests that Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents have similar social values concerning patient prioritization, although the Portuguese adhere slightly more to efficiency criteria and less to person-based and lottery criteria than Bulgarian and Croatian respondents.Practical implicationsA majority of respondents across the three countries report having opinion about the bedside rationing criteria. Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents accept a combination of personal and economic criteria in patient’s prioritization.Originality/valueThis study represents the first attempt to compare citizen’s opinions of three member states of the European Union.Paper typeResearch paper

Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting

BackgroundGovernments are facing tough choices about whether to fund new, promising but highly expensive drugs within the public healthcare system. Decisions that some drugs are not sufficiently beneficial relative to their cost to merit public funding are often contentious. The importance of making decisions that stakeholders can understand and accept as legitimate is increasingly recognized and is commonly understood to be a crucial component for stakeholder support and successful implementation. Yet, little is known about clinicians’ perceptions of legitimate limit-setting. This study aimed to examine oncologists’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governmental decisions to deny patients access to new cancer drugs because effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the drugs has not been demonstrated.MethodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews with 12 Norwegian oncologists were carried out. Data were interpreted with the use of theory driven thematic analysis. The analytical framework of Accountability for reasonableness aided data gathering and interpretation.ResultsThe participants endorsed the ideal of explicit criteria-based priority setting. Yet, when confronted with actual rationing decisions, they were far more equivocal. They advocated for increased access to drugs and were not always prepared to accept rationing of drugs they felt would benefit their patient. Distrust in the Norwegian centralised drug review process was found and different rationales were identified: i) Lack of engagement with the process, ii) Disagreement with the use of rationing criteria, iii) Lack of transparency and lack of dispute resolution procedures. Concerns about the wider implications of rationing decisions were reported. Most importantly, these related to negative impact on patient-doctor relationship of micro-level rationing and to inequities in drug availability resulting from privatisation of high-cost cancer treatment.ConclusionsDrawing on the analytical framework, we conclude that perceptions of legitimacy regarding rationing of high-cost drugs include procedural fairness. However, notions of substantive justice also seem to be important for accepting reasons given for decisions. Regulatory legitimacy may further warrant a more sophisticated theoretical account of second-order beliefs about the justifiability of rationing new technologies. These findings indicate a need for a broader concept of legitimacy than is commonly used in the literature on healthcare prioritisation.

OP174 Development Of A Formal Priority-Setting For The Philippine Government

Introduction:The lack of institutional mechanisms in the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) for rationalizing spending has led to a less than optimal allocation of financial resources. The study's objective is an explicit and systematic priority setting process of selecting new interventions for PhilHealth through identification of relevant literature evidence on the themes under study, then subjecting these to stakeholder and expert consultations.Methods:The qualitative study followed a problem solving approach to policy analysis. Bardach's Eightfold Path, supplemented by a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline on policy analysis, provided the framework. Eightfold path recommends that the analysis proceed by (i) defining the problem, (ii) assembling the evidence, (iii) constructing the alternatives, (iv) selecting the criteria for identifying the best alternative, (v) projecting the outcomes, (vi) confronting the tradeoffs, (vii) making the decision, and (viii) disseminating the results.Results:A six-step priority setting process to facilitate the assessment of new interventions for PhilHealth coverage was developed. The process is governed by seven accountability-based principles and four explicit criteria to evaluate interventions. Additionally, the study provided proof-of-concept for conducting local cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses as key inputs to a national systematic priority-setting process.Conclusions:This study recommended four criteria and a seven-step process for priority setting to be adopted and an overarching set of principles that will guide the conduct of such activities. The proposed priority-setting process was approved by the PhilHealth. The same process was adopted by the Department of Health in the draft administrative order for health technology assessment. This study stimulated research projects for economic evaluations of health interventions.

Groundwater arsenic in Bangladesh: what's new for policy research?

Abstract This paper provides an overview of policy responses to arsenic in groundwater in rural Bangladesh to assess their role and potential effectiveness in reducing exposure. With 97% of the country consuming groundwater for drinking, there is a continuing crisis of tens of millions of people exposed to elevated levels of arsenic. An examination of the number of people protected through two major remediation efforts suggests that recent progress may not be sufficient to keep up with the increasing population or to resolve the crisis during this century. Recent developments in remedial options are examined to identify their potential role in an evolving policy and research agenda. There appears to be growing agreement about future research and policy responses that can scale remedial options and make them widely accessible. These include: (1) the need for a reliable and affordable programme of arsenic testing and retesting; (2) attention to risks from other soluble contaminants and pathogens; (3) explicit priority setting across locations, time and to address fairness; and (4) development of value chains to ensure remedial options are supported over time.

How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda.

Background: To date, research on priority-setting for new vaccines has not adequately explored the influence of the global, national and sub-national levels of decision-making or contextual issues such as political pressure and stakeholder influence and power. Using Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework, this paper evaluates priority setting for new vaccines in Uganda at national and sub-national levels, and considers how global priorities can influence country priorities. This study focuses on 2 specific vaccines, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV). Methods: This was a qualitative study that involved reviewing relevant Ugandan policy documents and media reports, as well as 54 key informant interviews at the global level and national and sub-national levels in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate the prioritization process. Results: Priority setting for PCV and HPV was conducted by the Ministry of Health (MoH), which is considered to be a legitimate institution. While respondents described the priority setting process for PCV process as transparent, participatory, and guided by explicit relevant criteria and evidence, the prioritization of HPV was thought to have been less transparent and less participatory. Respondents reported that neither process was based on an explicit priority setting framework nor did it involve adequate representation from the districts (program implementers) or publicity. The priority setting process for both PCV and HPV was negatively affected by the larger political and economic context, which contributed to weak institutional capacity as well as power imbalances between development assistance partners and the MoH. Conclusion: Priority setting in Uganda would be improved by strengthening institutional capacity and leadership and ensuring a transparent and participatory processes in which key stakeholders such as program implementers (the districts) and beneficiaries (the public) are involved. Kapiriri and Martin’s framework has the potential to guide priority setting evaluation efforts, however, evaluation should be built into the priority setting process a priori such that information on priority setting is gathered throughout the implementation cycle.

Priorización de intervenciones sanitarias. Revisión de criterios, enfoques y rol de las agencias de evaluación

ObjectiveThis study was carried out to develop an explicit health priority setting methodology to support decision-making regarding the technologies to be assessed for inclusion in the National Health Service service portfolio. The primary objective is to identify and analyse the criteria, approaches and conceptual frameworks used for national/international priority setting. MethodAn exhaustive review of the literature was carried out. For this purpose, a search of the main biomedical databases was performed and assessment agency websites were reviewed, among other sources. ResultsIn general terms, it was found that there are no standardised criteria for priority setting, although some consensus and common trends have been identified regarding key elements (criteria, models and strategies, key actors, etc.). Globally, 8 key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality of and uncertainties regarding the evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) priority, justice and ethics; and 8) overall context. ConclusionsThe review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritisation framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organisations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities.

The International Right to Health: What Does It Mean in Legal Practice and How Can It Affect Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage?

—The international right to health is enshrined in national and international law. In a growing number of cases, individuals denied access to high-cost medicines and technologies under universal coverage systems have turned to the courts to challenge the denial of access as against their right to health. In some instances, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that they would have access to under universal coverage if not for government, health system, or service delivery shortfalls. In others, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that have not been included or that have been explicitly denied for coverage due to prioritization. In the former, judicialization of the right to health is critical to ensure patients access to the technologies or services to which they are entitled. In the latter, courts may grant patients access to medicines not covered as a result of explicit priority setting to allocate finite resources. By doing so, courts may give priority to those with the means and incentive to turn to the courts, at the expense of the maximization of equity- and population-based health. Evidence-based, informed decision-making processes could ensure that the most clinically and cost-effective products aligning with social value judgments are prioritized. Governments should be equipped to engage in and defend rational priority setting, and the priority setting process and institutions involved should be held accountable through an opportunity for appeal and judicial review. As a result, the courts could place greater reliance on the government's coverage choices, and the population's health could be most equitably distributed.

Priority Setting in Indigenous Health: Why We Need an Explicit Decision Making Approach

Indigenous Australians have significantly poorer health outcomes than the non-Indigenous population worldwide. The Australian government has increased its investment in Indigenous health through the "Closing the Health Gap" initiative. Deciding where to invest scarce resources so as to maximize health outcomes for Indigenous peoples may require improved priority setting processes. Current government practice involves a mix of implicit and explicit processes to varying degrees at the macro and meso decision making levels. In this article, we argue that explicit priority setting should be emphasized in Indigenous health, as it can ensure that the decision making process is accountable, systematic, and transparent. Following a review of the literature, we outline four key issues that need to be considered for explicit priority setting: developing an Indigenous health "constitution," strengthening the evidence base, selecting mechanisms for priority setting, and establishing appropriate incentives and institutional structure. We then summarize our findings into a checklist that can help a decision makers ensure that explicit priority setting is undertaken in Indigenous health. By addressing these key issues, the benefits of an explicit approach, which include increased efficiency, equity, and use of evidence, can be realized, thereby maximizing Indigenous health outcomes.

Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health.

IntroductionThe health of Indigenous Australians is worse than that of other Australians. Most of the determinants of health are preventable and the poor health outcomes are inequitable. The Australian Government recently pledged to close that health gap. One possible way is to improve the priority setting process to ensure transparency and the use of evidence such as epidemiology, equity and economic evaluation.The purpose of this research was to elicit the perceptions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous decision-makers on several issues related to priority setting in Indigenous-specific health care services. Specifically, we aimed to:1. identify the criteria used to set priorities in Indigenous-specific health care services;2. determine the level of uptake of economic evaluation evidence by decision-makers and how to improve its uptake; and3. identify how the priority setting process can be improved from the perspective of decision-makers.MethodsWe used a paper survey instrument, adapted from Mitton and colleagues’ work, and a face-to-face interview approach to elicit decision-makers’ perceptions in Indigenous-specific health care in Victoria, Australia. We used mixed methods to analyse data from the survey. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results were reported as numbers and percentages.ResultsThe size of the health burden; sustainability and acceptability of interventions; historical trends/patterns; and efficiency are key criteria for making choices in Indigenous health in Victoria. There is a need for an explicit priority setting approach, which is systematic, and is able to use available data/evidence, such as economic evaluation evidence. The involvement of Indigenous Australians in the process would potentially make the process acceptable.ConclusionsAn economic approach to priority setting is a potentially acceptable and useful tool for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). It has the ability to use evidence and ensure due process at the same time. The use of evidence can ensure that health outcomes for Indigenous peoples can be maximised – hence, increase the potential for ‘closing the gap’ between Indigenous and other Australians.

IMPROVING ACCESS TO SKILLED ATTENDANCE AT DELIVERY: A POLICY BRIEF FOR UGANDA

This study describes the process of production, findings for a policy brief on Increasing Access to Skilled Birth Attendance, and subsequent use of the report by policy makers and others from the health sector in Uganda. The methods used to prepare the policy brief use the SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policy making. The problem that this evidence brief addresses was identified through an explicit priority setting process involving policy makers and other stakeholders, further clarification with key informant interviews of relevant policy makers, and review of relevant documents. A working group of national stakeholder representatives and external reviewers commented on and contributed to successive drafts of the report. Research describing the problem, policy options, and implementation considerations was identified by reviewing government documents, routinely collected data, electronic literature searches, contact with key informants, and reviewing the reference lists of relevant documents that were retrieved. The proportion of pregnant women delivering from public and private non-profit facilities was low at 34 percent in 2008/09. The three policy options discussed in the report could be adopted independently or complementary to the other to increase access to skilled care. The Ministry of Health in deliberating to provide intrapartum care at first level health facilities from the second level of care, requested for research evidence to support these decisions. Maternal waiting shelters and working with the private-for-profit sector to facilitate deliveries in health facilities are promising complementary interventions that have been piloted in both the public and private health sector. A combination of strategies is needed to effectively implement the proposed options as discussed further in this article. The policy brief report was used as a background document for two stakeholder dialogue meetings involving members of parliament, policy makers, health managers, researchers, civil society, professional organizations, and the media.

Structures and processes for priority-setting by health-care funders: a national survey of primary care trusts in England

Although explicit priority-setting is advocated in the health services literature and supported by the policies of many governments, relatively little is known about the extent and ways in which this is carried out at local decision-making levels. Our objective was to undertake a survey of local resource allocaters in the English National Health Services in order to map and explore current priority-setting activity. A national survey was sent to Directors of Commissioning in English Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). The survey was designed to provide a picture of the types of priority-setting activities and techniques that are in place and offer some assessment of their perceived effectiveness. There is variation in the scale, aims and methods of priority-setting functions across PCTs. A perceived strength of priority-setting processes is in relation to the use of particular tools and/or development of formal processes that are felt to increase transparency. Perceived weaknesses tended to lie in the inability to sufficiently engage with a range of stakeholders. Although a number of formal priority-setting processes have been developed, there are a series of remaining challenges such as ensuring priority-setting goes beyond the margins and is embedded in budget management, and the development of disinvestment as well as investment strategies. Furthermore, if we are genuinely interested in a more explicit approach to priority-setting, then fostering a more inclusive and transparent process will be required.

Zusammenhang zwischen Priorisierung und Rationierung – zwei Modelle

The starting point of the present paper is the different uses of the terms prioritisation and rationing in the debate about resource allocation in health care. Two models of the relationship between prioritisation and rationing are developed. They are intended to contribute to a deeper understanding of the basic concepts. The first model of explicit priority setting assumes deliberate prioritisation which may form the basis of explicit rationing, but also of rationalisation and quality improvements. The second model, representing the rationing perspective, conceives rationing as a societal phenomenon whose implicit prioritisation criteria have to be deduced by means of interpretation. The two models can be distinguished from each other both theoretically and by their application in practice. Some advantages and disadvantages of the models are discussed.

Høykostnadsmedisin – mangler vi åpne og legitime prosedyrer for prioritering?

The gap between health needs and available resources leads to daily rationing decisions within the health system. We have explored whether procedures exist that can promote legitimate priority decisions in connection with implementation of new and expensive technology; implementation of new treatment regimes for colorectal cancer and breast cancer in Norway in 2005 are used as examples. This is a qualitative case study. The theoretical framework: "Accountability for reasonableness" was used to evaluate the introduction of the cancer drugs cetuximab (Erbitux) and trastuzumab (Herceptin). Data sources were official documents, newspaper articles and scientific publications with relevance to the priority setting debate concerning cetuximab and trastuzumab. Both cases illustrate hard choices with reasonable disagreements about values and data interpretation. The cases illustrate lack of publicity of both the decisions and their rationales. Cetuximab is less effective and costs more than trastuzumab. Weighting of cost and effect varied between the decision-makers. There are no formal mechanisms for appeals for patients who don't get the treatment they feel they are entitled to. When these two priority cases were debated there were no established institutions or implemented procedures to facilitate an open and explicit priority setting procedure taking into consideration reasonable disagreement on substantive values.

Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries.

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities.We review explicit priority setting efforts in Norway, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the state of Oregon in the US. The approaches used can be divided into those centered on outlining principles versus those that define practices. In order to establish the main lessons from their experiences we consider (1) the process each country used, (2) criteria to judge the success of these efforts, (3) which approaches seem to have met these criteria, and (4) using their successes and failures as a guide, how to proceed in setting priorities. We demonstrate that there is little evidence that establishment of a values framework for priority setting has had any effect on health policy, nor is there evidence that priority setting exercises have led to the envisaged ideal of an open and participatory public involvement in decision making.

Advances in Health Policy 2007

Notable advances have been made in stroke policy and outcomes research over the past year. Policy-relevant gray and published research is included in this review. The advances selected are organized under 3 areas: stroke policy and related evidence, predictive modeling, and quality improvement. ### The Role of Evidence in Stroke Policy Investments Different types of evidence are required at each stage in the development and implementation of large scale stroke strategies. The role of evidence was examined in the development of the Ontario Stroke System (a $30 million per year health policy initiative to improve stroke care in Ontario, Canada). Researchers identified key stages in the implementation process and the various types of evidence mobilized at each stage.1 The value of this research for stroke knowledge translation and policy is that evidence can be systematically organized and shared strategically to achieve policy commitments. ### Strategies for Improving Stroke Care The Helsingborg Declaration 2006 on European Stroke Strategies2 is a consensus document with substantial potential for influencing stroke policy in Europe. The Declaration states that by 2015 all persons in Europe with stroke should have access to a continuum of care in the acute phase including rehabilitation and secondary prevention. Clear goals for improving outcomes, the means to achieve them, and evaluation are outlined. The document also calls for a system to be established to incorporate new research into stroke care. In Canada, work continues on implementing the Canadian Stroke Strategy. The Canadian Stroke Network, a national center of excellence, has been a major contributor in developing research and knowledge translation toward improved policy and care.3 The policy challenge for Canada is that health is a provincial responsibility with substantially different health resources and commitments to stroke in each province. During 2007, several gains were made. For example, the Alberta Provincial Stroke Strategy was developed and a commitment of $1.1 million CDN was …