Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods

SLTs' conceptions about their own and parents' roles during intervention with preschool children

BACKGROUND

Current research investigating collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) indicates that the SLT role is characterized by therapist-led practice. Co-working with parents of children with speech and language difficulties is less frequently described. In order to embrace co-working during intervention, the SLT role may need to be reframed, focusing on acquiring skills in the role of coach as well as the role of planning intervention and treating children.

AIMS

To report (1) SLTs' conceptions about their own roles during intervention for pre-school children with speech and language difficulties; and (2) SLTs' conceptions of parents' roles during intervention.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A qualitative study used individual, semi-structured interviews with 12 SLTs working with pre-school children. Open-ended questions investigated SLTs' expectation of parents, experience of working with families, and the SLTs' conception of their roles during assessment, intervention and decision-making. Thematic network analysis was used to identify basic, organizational and global themes.

RESULTS & OUTCOMES

SLTs had three conceptions about their own role during intervention: treating, planning and coaching. The roles of treating and planning were clearly formulated, but the conception of their role as coach was more implicit in their discourse. SLTs' conception of parents' roles focused on parents as implementers of activities and only occasionally as change agents.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Collaboration that reflects co-working may necessitate changes in the conception about the role for both SLTs and parents. SLTs and parents may need to negotiate roles, with parents assuming learner and adaptor roles and SLTs adopting a coaching role to activate greater involvement of parents. Applying conceptual change theory offers new possibilities for understanding and enabling changes in SLTs' conception of roles, potentially initiating a deeper understanding of how to achieve co-working during speech and language intervention.

Attitudes of health professionals concerning bedside rationing criteria: a survey from Portugal

This paper tests the factorial structure of a questionnaire comprising seven health care rationing criteria (waiting time, ‘rule of rescue’, parenthood of minors, health maximization, youngest first, positive and negative version of social merit) and explores the adherence to them of 254 Portuguese health care professionals, when considered individually and when confronted with two-in-two combinations. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire where respondents faced hypothetical rationing dilemmas comprising one rationing criterion and dichotomous options pairs with two rationing criteria. Confirmatory factor analysis and multinomial logistic regressions were used to validate the structure of the questionnaire and the data. The findings suggest that: (i) the hepta-factorial structure of the questionnaire presented a good fit of the data; and (ii) support for rationing criterion depends on whether they are individually considered or confronted in dichotomous options pairs. When only one criterion distinguishes the patients, healthcare professionals support six criteria (by descending order): waiting time, rule of rescue, health maximization, penalization of patients’ risky behaviors, youngest first and being parent of a young child. When two criteria were confronted, immediate threat of life/health and large expected benefits were the most preferred. Conversely, the positive version of social merit was an unappreciated rationing criterion.

Bedside healthcare rationing dilemmas: a survey from Croatia

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore Croatian views about issues regarding bedside rationing decisions.

Design/methodology/approach

An online questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 243 Croatian citizens. In a context of hypothetical scenarios involving priority setting decisions taking by physicians, the present study elicits Croatian respondents’ views concerning: the ethical principles that should guide patients prioritization; the parties that should make prioritization decisions; and the likelihood of healthcare rationing becoming a reality. Descriptive analysis, factor analysis and parametric and non-parametric tests were performed.

Findings

Findings suggest that Croatian respondents: support multiple substantive rationing criteria, with an incident in favoring the worst-off, reducing inequalities in health, translated in the fair-innings argument and efficiency achievement; appoint health professionals as rationing decision makers; and do not seem to believe in the possibility of patient selection becoming a reality.

Practical implications

Favoring the worst-off, equalizing life time health and the pursuit of efficiency seem to be the criteria most preferred by Croatian respondents to guide rationing policy at the micro level.

Originality/value

This study is the first attempt to elicit Croatian opinions concerning several rationing criteria inherent in healthcare micro allocation decisions. Healthcare rationing is a serious challenge to Croatian policy makers and so it would be useful for the public’s perceptions and beliefs to be considered.

The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) is responsible for making coverage recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans about cancer drugs. Within the pcodr process, small groups of experts (including public representatives) consider the characteristics of each drug and make a funding recommendation. It is important to understand how the values and preferences of those decision-makers compare with the values and preferences of the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. In the present study, stated preference methods were used to elicit prioritization preferences from a representative sample of the Canadian public and a small convenience sample of pcodr committee members. The results suggested that neither group sought strictly to maximize quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gains and that they were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to prioritize particular patient characteristics. Both groups had a significant aversion to prioritizing older patients, patients in good pre-treatment health, and patients in poor post-treatment health. Those results are reassuring, in that they suggest that pcodr decision-maker preferences are consistent with those of the Canadian public, but they also imply that, like the larger public, decision-makers might value health gains to some patients more or less highly than the same gains to others. The implicit nature of pcodr decision criteria means that the acceptability or limits of such differential valuations are unclear. Likewise, there is no guidance as to which potential equity factors-for example, age, initial severity, and so on-are legitimate and which are not. More explicit guidance could improve the consistency and transparency of pcodr recommendations.

GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices - evidence from three national health services

We present results from an extensive discrete choice experiment, which was conducted in three countries (Norway, Scotland, and England) with the aim of disclosing stated prescription behaviour in different decision making contexts and across different cost containment cultures. We show that GPs in all countries respond to information about societal costs, benefits and effectiveness, and that they make trade-offs between them. The UK GPs have higher willingness to accept costs when they can prescribe medicines that are cheaper or more preferred by the patient, while Norwegian GPs tend to have higher willingness to accept costs for attributes regarding effectiveness or the doctors' experience. In general, there is a substantial amount of heterogeneity also within each country. We discuss the results from the DCE in the light of the GPs' two conflicting agency roles and what we know about the incentive structures and cultures in the different countries.

How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery

Difficulties in setting healthcare priorities are encountered throughout the world. There is no agreement on the most appropriate principles or methods for healthcare rationing although there is some consensus that it should be undertaken as systematically and accountably as possible. Although some steps towards achieving accountability have been made at the macro and meso level, at the consultation level rationing remains implicit and poorly understood. Using morbid obesity surgery as a case study, we observed a series of UK National Health Service consultations where rationing was ongoing and conducted in-depth interviews with doctors and patients (2011-2014). A longitudinal approach was taken to research and in total 22 consultations were observed and 78 interviews were undertaken. Sampling was undertaken purposively and theoretically and analyses were undertaken thematically. Clinicians needed to prioritise 55 patients from 450 eligible referrals, but disagreed over the extent to which clinical and financial factors were the driving force behind decision-making. The most prominent rationing technique observed in consultations was rationing by selection, but examples of rationing by delay, by deterrence, and by deflection were also commonplace. Although all clinicians sought to avoid rationing by denial, only six of the 22 patients recruited to the research were known to have been treated at the end of the three-year period. Most clinicians sought to manage rationing implicitly, and only one explained the link between decision-making criteria and financial constraints on care availability. Although existing frameworks for categorising NHS rationing techniques were useful in identifying implicit strategies, in practice these techniques over-lapped substantially and we have proposed a simpler framework for analysing NHS rationing decisions at the consultation level, which includes just three categories - rationing by exclusion, rationing by deterrence, and rationing by delay.

Knowledge of and preferences for health insurance among formal sector employees in Addis Ababa: a qualitative study

Background

The Ethiopian health system has been undergoing through reforms. One of the reforms stipulated in policy documents is the introduction of health insurance at national level. Having the majority of the population without any experience of health insurance, investigating preferences and knowledge of the essence of health insurance among potential enrolees will provide vital information for policy makers. This formative study seeks to explore the knowledge and the preference for health insurance among formal sector employees in Addis Ababa.

Methods

Six focus group discussions with formal sector employees and five key informant interviews were conducted in Addis Ababa. A thematic analysis is used to analyse the results.

Results

The findings suggest that there is little knowledge about the concept and elements of health insurance. Some concepts such as, risk pooling and sharing are not well understood. The participants of the study considered health insurance as only a prepayment mechanism without risk sharing among members of the scheme. Regarding preference for health insurance, they have revealed quality of care as the most important factor. Comprehensiveness of benefit packages and the amount of premium level are also found to be concerns related to health insurance. However, a trade-off is also observed among premium level, comprehensive benefit packages, and healthcare facilities.

Conclusions

Improvements on availability and quality of services need to precede the introduction of social health insurance. There is also a need to work on awareness creation regarding concepts of health insurance. Further studies may explore if the knowledge gap is real or appeared due to reservations of the participants on the introduction of health insurance.

Fair reckoning: a qualitative investigation of responses to an economic health resource allocation survey

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how participants in an economic resource allocation survey construct notions of fairness.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study guided by interpretive grounded theory methods.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with volunteer university- (n=39) and community-based (n =7) economic survey participants. INTERVENTION OR MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: We explored how participants constructed meanings to guide or explain fair survey choices, focusing on rationales, imagery and additional desired information not provided in the survey scenarios.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were transcribed and coded into qualitative categories. Analysis iterated with data collection iterated through three waves of interviews.

RESULTS

Participants compared the survey dilemmas to domains outside the health system. Most compared them with other micro-level, inter-personal sharing tasks. Participants raised several fairness-relevant factors beyond need or capacity to benefit. These included age, weight, poverty, access to other options and personal responsibility for illness; illness duration, curability or seriousness; life expectancy; possibilities for sharing; awareness of other's needs; and ability to explain allocations to those affected. They also articulated a fairness principle little considered by equity theories: that everybody must get something and nobody should get nothing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Lay criteria for judging fairness are myriad. Simple scenarios may be used to investigate lay commitments to abstract principles. Although principles are the focus of analysis and inference, participants may solve simplified dilemmas by imputing extraneous features to the problem or applying unanticipated principles. These possibilities should be taken into account in the design of resource allocation surveys eliciting the views of the public.

Q-ing for health--a new approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation

The elicitation of societal views about healthcare priority setting is an important, contemporary research area, and there are a number of studies that apply either qualitative techniques or quantitative preference elicitation methods. However, there are methodological challenges in connecting qualitative information (what perspectives exist about a subject) with quantitative questions (to what extent are those perspectives 'supported' in a wider population). In this paper, we present an integrated, mixed-methods approach to the elicitation of public perspectives in two linked studies applying Q methodology. In the first study, we identify three broad viewpoints on the subject of health priorities. In the second study, using Q-survey methods, we describe and illustrate methods to investigate the distribution of those views in the wider population. The findings of the second study suggest that no single viewpoint dominates and none of the three views represents a 'minority perspective'. We demonstrate the potential of Q methodology as a methodological framework that can be used to link qualitative and quantitative questions and suggest some advantages of this over other approaches. However, as this represents the first applied study of this kind, there are methodological questions that require further exploration and development.

What determines providers' stated preference for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria?

As agents for their patients, providers often make treatment decisions on behalf of patients, and their choices can affect health outcomes. However, providers operate within a network of relationships and are agents not only for their patients, but also other health sector actors, such as their employer, the Ministry of Health, and pharmaceutical suppliers. Providers' stated preferences for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria were examined to determine what factors predict their choice of treatment in the absence of information and institutional constraints, such as the stock of medicines or the patient's ability to pay. 518 providers working at non-profit health facilities and for-profit pharmacies and drug stores in Yaoundé and Bamenda in Cameroon and in Enugu State in Nigeria were surveyed between July and December 2009 to elicit the antimalarial they prefer to supply for uncomplicated malaria. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the effect of financial and non-financial incentives on their preference, while controlling for information and institutional constraints, and accounting for the clustering of providers within facilities and geographic areas. 69% of providers stated a preference for artemisinin-combination therapy (ACT), which is the recommended treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Cameroon and Nigeria. A preference for ACT was significantly associated with working at a for-profit facility, reporting that patients prefer ACT, and working at facilities that obtain antimalarials from drug company representatives. Preferences were similar among colleagues within a facility, and among providers working in the same locality. Knowing the government recommends ACT was a significant predictor, though having access to clinical guidelines was not sufficient. Providers are agents serving multiple principals and their preferences over alternative antimalarials were influenced by patients, drug company representatives, and other providers working at the same facility and in the local area. Efforts to disseminate drug policy should target the full range of actors involved in supplying drugs, including providers, employers, suppliers and local communities.

Moral distress among health system managers: exploratory research in two British Columbia health authorities

Moral distress is a concept used to date in clinical literature to describe the experience of staff in circumstances in which they are prevented from delivering the kind of bedside care they believe is expected of them, professionally and ethically. Our research objective was to determine if this concept has relevance in terms of key health care managerial functions, such as priority setting and resource allocation. We conducted interviews and focus groups with mid- and senior-level managers in two British Columbia (Canada) health authorities. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using constant comparison to identify key themes related to moral distress. Both mid- and senior-level managers appear to experience moral distress, with both similarities and differences in how their experiences manifest. Several examples of this concept were identified including the obligation to communicate or 'sell' organizational decisions or policies with which a manager personally may disagree and situations where scarce resources compel managers to place staff in situations where they meet with predictable and potentially avoidable risks. Given that moral distress appears to be a relevant issue for at least some health care managers, further research is warranted into its exact nature, prevalence, and possible organizational and personal responses.

Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research

Priority setting research in health economics has traditionally employed quantitative methodologies and been informed by post-positivist philosophical assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge. These approaches have been rewarded with well-developed and validated tools. However, it is now commonly noted that there has been limited uptake of economic analysis into actual priority setting and resource allocation decisions made by health-care systems. There seem to be substantial organizational and political barriers. The authors argue in this paper that understanding and addressing these barriers will depend upon the application of qualitative research methodologies. Some efforts in this direction have been attempted; however these are theoretically under-developed and seldom rooted in any of the established qualitative research traditions. Two such approaches - narrative inquiry and discourse analysis - are highlighted here. These are illustrated with examples drawn from a real-world priority setting study. The examples demonstrate how such conceptually powerful qualitative traditions produce distinctive findings that offer unique insight into organizational contexts and decision-maker behavior. We argue that such investigations offer untapped benefits for the study of organizational priority setting and thus should be pursued more frequently by the health economics research community.

GPs as citizens' agents: prescription behavior and altruism

To curb the heavily increasing drug budgets some Danish counties have introduced voluntary agreements between general practitioners (GPs) and health authorities. We extend the models of generic prescription by Hellerstein (Rand J Econ 29(1):108-136, 1998) and Lundin (J Health Econ 19:639-662, 2000) to allow for substitution between analogues and use difference-in-difference models to assess the effect on two drug groups (lipid-lowering and rheumatism drugs). For both drug groups we find evidence of a significant effect of the intervention. In the case of lipid-lowering drugs, we found a significant larger impact on GPs with low loyalty to the insurer and with indication of low prescription quality. In contrast we found that the intervention had a significantly lower impact on this group of GPs in the case of rheumatism drugs. We conclude that the effectiveness of the voluntary approach may partly be due to its indirect effect on GPs' altruistic motivation, which makes the GPs and the authorities collide in a common agency role.

Attitudes towards priority-setting and rationing in healthcare — an exploratory survey of Swedish medical students

Background: Healthcare priority-setting is inextricably linked to the challenge of providing publicly funded healthcare within a limited budget, which may result in difficult and potentially controversial rationing decisions. Despite priority-setting's increasing prominence in policy and academic discussion, it is still unclear what the level of understanding and acceptance of priority-setting is at different levels of health care. Aims: The aim of this study is threefold. First we wish to explore the level of familiarity with different aspects of priority-setting among graduating medical students. Secondly, to gauge their acceptance of both established and proposed Swedish priority-setting principles. Finally to elucidate their attitudes towards healthcare rationing and the role of different actors in decision making, with a particular interest in comparing the attitudes of medical students with data from the literature examining the attitudes among primary care patients in Sweden. Methods: A cross-sectional survey containing 14 multiple choice items about priority-setting in healthcare was distributed to the graduating medical class at Linkoöping University. The response rate was 92% (43/47). Results: Less than half of respondents have encountered the notion of open priority-setting, and the majority believed it to be somewhat or very unclear. There is a high degree of awareness and agreement with the established ethical principles for priority-setting in Swedish health care; however respondents are inconsistent in their application of the cost-effectiveness principle. A larger proportion of respondents were more favourable to physicians and other health personnel being responsible for rationing decisions as opposed to politicians. Conclusions: Future discussion about priority-setting in medical education should be contextualized within an explicit and open process. There is a need to adequately clarify the role of the cost-effectiveness principle in priority-setting. Medical students seem to acknowledge the need for rationing in healthcare to a greater extent when compared with previous results from Swedish primary care patients.

The dynamics of commissioning across organisational and clinical boundaries

PURPOSE

The purpose of the paper is to investigate the inter- and intra-organisational relationships in the commissioning of secondary care by primary care trusts in England, using a principal-agent framework.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The methodology is a qualitative study of three case studies. A total of 13 commissioning-related meetings were observed. In total, 21 managers and six consultant surgeons were interviewed.

FINDINGS

There are a number of different levels at which contractual and managerial control take place. Different strengths of control at one level can affect willingness to comply with agreements at other levels. Agreements at one level do not necessarily result in appropriate or expected action at another.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The system for commissioning in the National Health Service (NHS) has changed with the introduction of payment by results and practice-based commissioning. However, the dynamics of the inter- and intra-organisational relationships studied remain.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Incentives within organisations are as important as those between organisations. Within a chain of principal-agent relations, it is important that a strong link in the chain does not result in the exploitation of weaknesses in other links. If government targets and frameworks are to be met through commissioning, it may be advantageous to concentrate efforts on developing incentives that align clinician with NHS trust objectives as well as NHS trust with primary care trust (PCT) and government objectives.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This paper is based on original empirical work. It uses a principal-agent framework to understand the relationships between PCTs and NHS trusts and highlights the importance of internal NHS trust governance systems in the fulfilment of commissioning agreements.

Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation

OBJECTIVE

To explore decision-making and the use of economic evaluation at the local health care decision-making level in England (UK).

METHODS

Data collection was over a 16-month period (January 2003 to April 2004). Data collection comprised 29 in-depth interviews with a range of decision makers, 13 observations of decision-making meetings, and analysis of documents produced at meetings. A constant comparative approach was used to identify broad themes and sub-themes arising from the data. Data were analysed using Microsoft Word.

RESULTS

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance provides the main way in which economic evaluation is used at a local level in the UK, although following NICE guidance is often regarded as detrimental to pursuing local priorities. Other than through NICE, economic evaluation is not considered at the local level; we found no evidence for use at the meeting group (by individuals). Although decision makers appear to understand notions of scarcity, with some also referring to value for money, the process of decision-making departs from these principles in practice. Disinvestment decisions are not made nor are decisions weighted against pre-defined criteria. Options appraisal is conducted, but it does not embody the principles of economic evaluation, since options are not considered in terms of their costs and benefits and opportunity cost is not accounted for. There appear to be two reasons why economic evaluation is not used at the local level: (1) the nature of management decisions concerned with the employment of extra staff and new equipment, rather than the choice of medicines or specific interventions usually assessed in published economic evaluation; (2) lack of awareness of the economic evaluation approach to decision-making. These two factors point to a lack of freedom in decision-making at the local level and a lack of understanding of how priority setting can be achieved in practice.

CONCLUSION

A more detailed and rigorous approach to prioritisation at the local level is required. Whilst, PCTs have been given greater responsibility for priority setting, they lack the necessary power and understanding of the ways in which long term solutions to problems in health care can be achieved. Economics can be a valuable asset to priority setting and has already filtered into the jargon used by decision makers. Whilst most concepts are understood, the leap to adopting these concepts into the practice of decision-making needs to be made.

Health insurance benefit packages prioritized by low-income clients in India: three criteria to estimate effectiveness of choice

We applied a decision tool for rationing choices, with a predetermined budget of about 11 US dollars per household per year, to identify priorities of poor people regarding health insurance benefits in India in late 2005. A total of 302 individuals, organized in 24 groups, participated from a number of villages and neighborhoods of towns in Karnataka and Maharashtra. Many individuals were illiterate, innumerate and without insurance experience. Involving clients in insurance package design is based on an implied assumption that people can make judicious rationing decisions. Judiciousness was assessed by examining the association between the frequency of choosing a package and its perceived effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness was evaluated by comparing respondents' choices to the costs registered in 2049 illness episodes among a comparable cohort, using three criteria: 'reimbursement' (reimbursement regardless of the absolute level of expenditure), 'fairness' (higher reimbursement rate for higher expenses) and 'catastrophic coverage' (insurance for catastrophic exposure). The most frequently chosen packages scored highly on all three criteria; thus, rationing choices were confirmed as judicious. Fully 88.4% of the respondents selected at least three of the following benefits: outpatient, inpatient, drugs and tests, with a clear preference to cover high aggregate costs regardless of their probability. The results show that involving prospective clients in benefit package design can be done without compromising the judiciousness of rationing choices, even with people who have low education, low-income and no previous experience in similar exercises.

Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: a conceptual framework

Concern has increasingly been expressed at the low level of impact that economic evaluations have on the priority setting decisions they are designed to inform. The concern to maximise the impact of economic evaluation in health care is reminiscent of research utilisation debates rehearsed in the various policy studies disciplines. This paper draws on selected themes and frameworks from this literature in order to explore issues and map out an agenda relating to the uptake and use of cost effectiveness analysis in health policy decisions. The authors consider the implications for health economics, and other policy-related research and evaluation, of adopting either a rational or interactive model of research utilisation. Economic evaluations can be normative or descriptive decision tools. The choice of approach will reflect the assumed model of research utilisation and has implications for overcoming barriers to impact on policy. There is an underlying conceptual link between the rational model of research utilisation, the normative approach to economic evaluation and a focus on barriers to the accessibility of published analyses. In contrast, acknowledgement of an interactive and incremental policy process predisposes the analyst to a more descriptive approach and suggests the importance of broader systems, process and ethical barriers to the use of economic evaluation. We address the crucial issue of the importance of establishing objectives and discuss how this issue effects how those seeking to influence policy should proceed. Finally, we discuss indirect or 'enlightenment' models of research utilisation and the implications of these for the community of health economists.

Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority

Due to resource scarcity, every health system worldwide must decide what services to fund, and conversely, what services not to fund. In order to institute and refine a macro-level priority setting framework within a large, urban health authority in Alberta, Canada, researchers and decision makers together embarked on a participatory action research (PAR) project. The focus of this paper is the PAR process in this context, including reflections from PAR participants about the contribution of the research methodology to their own practice as health care managers and clinicians. The use of qualitative research in health economics--in this case, to refine the application of a macro-level priority setting model--is a relatively new advancement. PAR proved to be an appropriate and helpful approach to introducing a theoretically driven model of macro-level priority setting within a large, complex health organization. However, it is important that support for the change is sustained as long as necessary to embed the new practices into the organization.

Understanding consumers' preferences and decision to enrol in community-based health insurance in rural West Africa

This paper presents a qualitative investigation of consumers' preferences regarding the single elements of a community-based health insurance (CBI) scheme recently implemented in a rural region in west Africa. The aim is to provide adequate policy-guidance to decision makers in low and middle income countries by producing an in-depth understanding of how consumers' preferences may affect decision to participate in such schemes. Although it has long been suggested that feeble levels of participation may very well be an expression of consumers' dissatisfaction with scheme design, little systematic efforts have so far been channelled towards supporting such argument with empirical evidence. Consumers' preferences were explored through means of 32 individual interviews with household heads. Analysis used the method of constant comparison and was conducted by two independent researchers. Data from 10 focus group discussions provided an additional valuable source of triangulation. Findings suggest that decision to enrol is closely linked to whether the single elements of the scheme match consumers' needs and expectations. In particular, consumers justified decision to join or not to join the insurance scheme in relation to their preference for the unit of enrolment, the premium level and the payment modalities, the benefit package, the health service provider network and the CBI managerial structure. The discussion of the findings focuses on how understanding consumers' preferences and incorporating them in the design of a CBI scheme may result in increased participation rates, ensuring that poor populations gain better access to health services and enjoy greater protection against the cost of illness.

The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions

Substantial debate on the appropriate foundations of economic evaluation in health-care has been conducted between welfarists and non-welfarists in the health economics literature. This has focussed on defining and measuring appropriate outcomes. However, there has been little discussion of the importance of procedures. This paper examines six dimensions of procedure in relation to health-care rationing which are drawn from existing literature and previous empirical investigation. A survey of the general public was used to test for preferences for each dimension of procedure. Results show that for each dimension the importance differed according to the level of decision-making (we tested decision-making at the level of the individual doctor, health authority and government). We identified three distinct clusters of respondents who can be broadly described as "proceduralists" (47%), "pluralists" (15%) and "anti-consequentialists" (38%). The paper concludes that consequentialism is insufficient to provide the conceptual framework that public decision-making in health requires, although this does not mean that consequences are unimportant.

Procedural justice in public health care resource allocation

INTRODUCTION

The legal studies literature on procedural justice identifies six key characteristics of procedural justice: accuracy, consistency, impartiality, reversibility, transparency and voice. However, the relative importance of these in the context of public health care resource allocation is unclear, as is whether they are valuable instrumentally (because it contributes to better outcomes) or inherently (for its own sake).

METHODS

A survey of 80-odd members of the UK public determined the following: the ranking of all the six characteristics; the pairwise comparisons of the characteristics; and whether each characteristic was important for instrumental reasons, for intrinsic reasons or for both.

RESULTS

Respondents ranked the procedures in the order of accuracy, consistency, impartiality, reversibility and transparency. Procedural justice was valued for both instrumental and inherent reasons.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

A robust ranking of five of the six procedural characteristics was found. The ranking for voice was sensitive to the question format, which has methodological implications. Around a quarter to a third of respondents regarded a procedural characteristic to have entirely intrinsic value.

The patient's role in the spread and control of bacterial resistance to antibiotics

As the ultimate consumers, patients play an important role in the emergence, spread and control of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Improved knowledge of antibiotics and the problem of resistance, as well as a better understanding of beliefs, pressures/concerns, and expectations, from both the patient's and physician's perspectives, are fundamental for controlling antibiotic use. There is growing evidence to suggest that empowering patients through implementation of patient-centered health-care strategies, such as shared decision-making, in conjunction with educational initiatives help to change attitudes and behavior, and improve access to and completion of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. This, in turn, may help to control the development and spread of resistance to antibiotics.

Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence

Most health economists agree that public preferences should play a major role in setting criteria for distributing scarce resources. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is used as a preference-based measure for the outcome of health-care activities in health economic evaluative studies. Traditionally, health economists proposed maximizing the additional health gain in terms of QALYs so as to maximize social welfare. Evidence has grown however, that neither potential health gain as a single relevant determinant of value, nor the rule of maximizing this health gain are sufficient. Concerns about fairness and equity are also important to the public in distributional decisions. This paper reviews the debate on the role and limitations of the QALY in health-care priority setting and the empirical evidence surrounding it. A framework is used to systematically explore the available data on factors considered to be important to the public in health-care resource allocation, and to investigate how these fit with the implicit value judgements inherent in the original QALY formulation. Potential sources of social value are classified into (1) factors that relate to the characteristics of patients and (2) factors related to the characteristics of the intervention's effect on patients' health. As well as these main categories, the article considers preferences for distributional rules. Recent approaches that aim to capture public preferences more comprehensively and to better reflect the value attributed to different health-care programmes in economic evaluation methods are outlined briefly.

Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views of citizens and service informants about whether they would want to know about any rationing of their own health care.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews using a semistructured schedule. Data were analysed using the methods of constant comparison.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Citizens and service informants.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Issues around health care rationing were explored within the context of the United Kingdom health care system.

RESULTS

The views of citizens and service informants were very similar in terms of whether they, personally, wanted to know about any rationing of their own care, with the vast majority wanting to be given this information. Informants were also similar in terms of their reasons for wanting to know about rationing: to be given a 'good explanation' to enable them to judge whether the decision made had been correct; and to enable them to change the decision if necessary, either through protest or payment. Many informants suggested that they would indeed be likely to react either by challenging the decision or by paying for care.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that policies to be open with people about the rationing of care would be welcomed, but also indicate that if protest follows such openness, it may be difficult for the health service to cope with greater explicitness. Further research is needed among patient groups actually facing this situation.