Priority-setting Decisions In Healthcare Research Articles

Consolidating political leadership in healthcare: a mediating institution for priority-setting as a political strategy in a local health system.

The allocation of resources is a crucial part of political decision-making in healthcare, but explicit priorities are rarely set when resources are distributed. Two areas that have received some attention in research about legitimacy and priority-setting decisions in healthcare are the role of technical expert agencies as mediating institutions and the role of elected politicians. This paper investigates a political priority-setting advisory committee within a regional authority in Sweden. The aim is to explore how a political body can serve as a mediating institution for priority-setting in healthcare by disentangling the arrangements of its work in terms of what role it performs in the organisation and what it should do. The findings illustrate that promoting the notion of explicit priority-setting and the political aspects inherent in priority-setting in political healthcare management can contribute to consolidating political governance and leadership. There is, however, a complex tension between stability and conflicting values which has implications for the role of politicians as citizens' democratic representatives. This paper enhances our understanding of the role of mediating institutions and political properties of healthcare priority-setting, as well as our understanding of political and democratic healthcare governance in local self-government.

Health technology assessment and judicial deference to priority-setting decisions in healthcare: Quasi-experimental analysis of right-to-health litigation in Brazil.

The constitutional right to health in Brazil has entitled patients to litigate against the government-funded national health system (SUS), claiming access to various health treatments including those excluded from the health system's benefits package. Courts have tended to rely on a single medical prescription to judge these cases in favor of individual patients and against the health system. The large volume of cases has had a substantial financial impact on the government's health budget and has created unfairness in accessing healthcare. To change courts' behavior, a new health technology assessment (HTA) body – CONITEC – was created in 2011. Its creation was accompanied by an administrative procedure that made decisions about the health system's benefits package more transparent, accountable, participative and evidence-informed. It was expected that this HTA system would bring more legitimacy to the government's priority-setting decisions and promote deference from the courts. This study tests whether Brazil's new HTA system succeeded in encouraging judicial deference by analyzing a stratified random sample of 13,263 court decisions for whether the existence of a CONITEC report resulted in less frequent court orders to provide treatment for individual litigants. The results show that the creation of CONITEC did not change courts' behavior; courts still decide in favor of patients in most cases. Indeed, even when there was a CONITEC report recommending against government funding for a particular healthcare treatment, the vast majority of the relatively few patients who were unsuccessful in obtaining a health benefit at their first court hearing later obtained a favorable decision after appealing to a higher court. This finding was confirmed through an interrupted time-series analysis that did not find an impact of having a CONITEC report on courts' willingness to override a government priority-setting decision. In fact, CONITEC was rarely cited in court decisions, even when litigants mentioned the existence of a CONITEC report.

Integrating public input into healthcare priority-setting decisions

Decision makers are pressed to involve the public in priority setting. However, public input is only one form of evidence. So, how can information from the public be combined with other knowledge? The authors qualitatively analysed articles that explicitly address this question. We identified the other forms of information that tend to be used in conjunction with public input, the degree to which members of the public are asked to be the integrators of data, and techniques that recur in several settings. Three factors must be balanced when integrating public opinion into priority setting: first, balancing problem-solving and sense-making objectives; second, choosing between consensus-building and structured-conflict approaches; third, addressing many broad factors or a smaller set of focused alternatives.

BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REASONABLENESS

This paper is a critique of Norman Daniels' and James Sabin's 'Accountability for Reasonableness' framework for making priority-setting decisions in health care in the face of widespread disagreement about values. Accountability for Reasonableness has been rapidly gaining worldwide acceptance, arguably to the point of becoming the dominant paradigm in the field of health policy. The framework attempts to set ground rules for a procedure that ensures that whatever decisions result will be fair, reasonable, and legitimate to the extent that even those who would be adversely affected will have reason to abide by them. I argue that the framework's four conditions are inadequate to this task. While we certainly require a fair and legitimate procedure for making priority setting decisions in health care despite a lack of consensus on relevant ethical and political issues, we must significantly revise the four conditions, and we cannot avoid facing our substantive disagreements head on if we hope to arrive at decisions that would (and should) be acceptable to everyone. I offer two suggestions. First, there is need for greater public involvement in all stages of deliberation. Second, we should give up on the idea that we can simplify the task of democratic deliberation by disallowing particular kinds or reasons and types of reasoning. Reasons of all kinds should be on the table, but then should be judged on their merits, such as consistency, plausibility and explanatory power, without any regard for their alleged sources of authority.

A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand: are the data good enough to be used by policy-makers?

In many countries, including Thailand, there is an increasing impetus to use economic evaluation to allow more explicit and transparent healthcare priority setting. However, an important question for policy makers in low- and middle-income countries is whether it is appropriate and feasible to introduce economic evaluation data into healthcare priority-setting decisions. In addition to ethical, social and political issues, information supply challenges need to be addressed. This paper systematically reviewed the literature on economic evaluation of health technology in Thailand published between 1982 and 2005. Its aim was to analyse the quantity, quality and targeting of economic evaluation studies that can provide a framework for those conducting similar reviews in other settings. The review revealed that, although the number of publications reporting economic evaluations has increased significantly in recent years, serious attention needs to be given to the quality of reporting and analysis. Furthermore, there is an absence of economic evaluation publications for 15 of the top 20 major health problems in Thailand, indicating a poor distribution of research resources towards the determination of cost-effective interventions for diminishing the disease burden of certain major health problems. If economic evaluation is only useful for policy makers when performed correctly and reported accurately, these findings depict information barriers to using economic evaluation to assist health decision-making processes in Thailand.

Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia

The discussion over whether community preferences have a legitimate role to play in priority setting has been highly polarised. Skeptics warn of the risk of establishing a ‘dictatorship of the uninformed’, while advocates proclaim the legitimacy of the participatory process. The one group who appears not to be consulted in this debate is the citizens themselves. In this study, a convenience sample of 373 citizens attending two medical clinics in central Sydney were surveyed about whether the general public has a legitimate role to play in informing priority setting in health care. Respondents were presented with three different levels of priority setting: across health care programmes, across medical procedures, and at a global level. To assist respondents in understanding the choices and trade-offs involved, they were given information about current levels of funding and the cost-effectiveness of each alternative. Respondents were asked whether they felt the preferences of the general public should be used to inform priority setting at each level. Of particular interest was the question of whether their willingness to use public preferences depended on the level of priority setting. Respondents were also asked about who else's preferences should be used to inform priority setting at each level. The results suggest that the public overwhelmingly want their preferences to inform priority-setting decisions in health care. This was seen to be particularly important in informing decisions about how to prioritise across broad health care programmes and about the criteria to be used to allocate funds across different population groups. In contrast, the preferences of medical professionals and health service managers were rated most highly in relation to the prioritisation of different treatments and medical procedures. In most cases, however, respondents did not advocate the use of one particular group's preferences. Even when the preferences of the general public were considered most important, it was felt that any decision-making process needed to be informed by the preferences of a range of groups. The preferences of politicians were viewed as least important to processes of priority setting in health care.