Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?

Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment

Priority setting is a critical process for national healthcare systems that need to allocate limited resources across unlimited healthcare demands. In recent decades, health policymakers have identified the need to combine technical dimensions of priority setting with political dimensions relating to community values. A range of methods for engaging the public in priority setting has been developed, yet there is no consensus around the most effective methodology. A 2014 paper proposed the integration of two methods currently used for soliciting public preferences around health care services: i) an individual survey instrument, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) and ii) Citizen Juries (CJs), a group-based model that incorporates education and deliberative dialogue. This pilot study is among the first to empirically test this integrated method to assess its value across two domains: does the CJ process alter participant preferences and are the consensus values of the CJ captured by the individualistic DCE? The two-part, mixed methods study was administered in Taipei, Taiwan in August of 2016. Twenty-seven participants completed a DCE as a baseline pre-test, ranking a set of attributes in terms of importance for future resource allocation under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System. Twenty of the participants next took part in the integrated CJ-DCE method, which consisted of education and facilitated dialogue through a CJ, followed by retaking the DCE survey. Participant preferences changed after undergoing the CJ process and these new, group-based preferences were reflected in the second DCE, meaning participants did not revert to their original individualistic preferences. The results of this study demonstrate that the integrated CJ-DCE method adds value in allowing an ethically communitarian set of values to be developed and captured via an individualistic methodology. Further testing is needed to investigate the reliability of our findings and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance.

Disentangling the welfarism/extra-welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine-grained categorization

In health economics, the distinction between welfarism and extra-welfarism has been employed to discuss various epistemological and normative differences between health evaluation approaches. However, a clear consensus on the definition of either welfarism, extra-welfarism, or the differences between the two sets of approaches has not emerged. I propose an alternative set of distinctions that allows for a more fine-grained categorization of health evaluation approaches. This categorization focuses on five dimensions: (1) the maximand of an evaluation approach, (2) its sensitivity toward normative concerns that defy compensation, (3) its position on which groups of individuals or collective entities act as sources of values, (4) its sensitivity to changes of mind, and (5) the inclusion of process-external values.

Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: results of citizens' juries in Australian prisons

Health disparities in incarcerated populations should guide investment in the health care and research of these communities. Although users of health-care services are important in providing input into decisions about research, the voices of people in prison are absent regarding research into their health. In this Health Policy paper, we present priorities for research into the health of people in prison according to people in prison themselves. By use of a deliberative research approach, citizens' juries were conducted in six prisons (three men's and three women's prisons) in Australia. Participants were selected following submissions of expression of interest forms that were distributed within the prisons. Prerecorded information by experts in the health of incarcerated people was shown to participants. Participants deliberated for up to 4 h before agreeing on five research priorities. All citizens' juries endorsed mental health as a number one research priority. Prison health-care services, alcohol and other drug use, education, and infectious diseases were identified as research priorities by most citizens' juries. Focal points within priorities included serious mental illness; grief and trauma; medication management; health-care service access, quality, and resources; drug withdrawal and peer support; prison-based needle and syringe programmes; and health and life skills education. If endeavours in research priority setting are to consider health equity goals, the views of our most health affected citizens need to be included.

Are Discount Rates Too High? Population Health and Intergenerational Equity

Increasing attention is being paid to policy decisions in which shorter-term benefits may be eclipsed by longer-term harms, such as environmental damage. Health policy decisions have largely been spared this scrutiny, even though they too may contribute to longer-term harms. Any healthy population or society must sustain itself through reproduction, and therefore, transgenerational outcomes should be of intrinsic importance from a societal perspective. Yet, the discount rates typically employed in cost-effectiveness analyses have the effect of minimizing the importance of transgenerational health outcomes. We argue that, because cost-effectiveness analysis is based on foundational axioms of decision theory, it should value transgenerational outcomes consistently with those axioms, which require discount rates substantially lower than 3%. We discuss why such lower rates may not violate the Cretin-Keeler paradox.

Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP's) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD's).

Sharing and the Provision of "Cost-Ineffective" Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility analysis prioritizes services using cost, life-years, and the health state utility of the life-years. Nevertheless, a significant body of evidence suggests that the public would prefer more variables to be considered in decision making and at least some sharing of the budget with services for severe conditions that are not cost-effective because of their high cost.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether this preference for sharing persists for less severe conditions when both cost effectiveness and illness severity would indicate that resources should be allocated to other services.

METHODS

Survey respondents were asked to divide a budget between two patients facing life-threatening illnesses. The severity of the illnesses differed and the price of treatment was varied.

RESULTS

Sharing occurred in all scenarios including scenarios in which the illness was less severe and services were not cost-effective. Results are consistent with behavior commonly observed in other contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that sharing per se is important and that the public would support some funding of cost-ineffective services for less severe health problems.

Describing and evaluating healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Healthcare priority setting research has focused at the macro (national) and micro (patient level), while there is a dearth of literature on meso-level (subnational/regional) priority setting practices. In this study, we aimed to describe and evaluate healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya.

METHODS

We used a qualitative case study approach to examine the planning and budgeting processes in 2 counties in Kenya. We collected the data through in-depth interviews of senior managers, middle-level managers, frontline managers, and health partners (n = 23) and document reviews. We analyzed the data using a framework approach.

FINDINGS

The planning and budgeting processes in both counties were characterized by misalignment and the dominance of informal considerations in decision making. When evaluated against consequential conditions, efficiency and equity considerations were not incorporated in the planning and budgeting processes. Stakeholders were more satisfied and understood the planning process compared with the budgeting process. There was a lack of shifting of priorities and unsatisfactory implementation of decisions. Against procedural conditions, the planning process was more inclusive and transparent and stakeholders were more empowered compared with the budgeting process. There was ineffective use of data, lack of provisions for appeal and revisions, and limited mechanisms for incorporating community values in the planning and budgeting.

CONCLUSION

County governments can improve the planning and budgeting processes by aligning them, implementing a systematic priority setting process with explicit resource allocation criteria, and adhering to both consequential and procedural aspects of an ideal priority setting process.

Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview

Rules and principles for guiding decision-making in the health care sector have been debated for decades. Here, we present a critical appraisal of the two most important paradigms in this respect: welfarism and extra-welfarism. While the former deals with the maximization of the overall sum of individual utilities as its primary outcome, the latter has been focusing on the maximization of the overall health status. We argue that welfarism has three main problems: (1) its central idea of overall sum of individual utilities does not capture societal values decisively relevant in the context of health; (2) the use of the Potential Pareto Improvement brings an unresolvable separation between efficiency and equity; and (3) individual utility may not be a good measure in the health sector, given that individuals might value things that diminish their overall health. In turn, the extra-welfarist approach is criticized regarding four main limitations: (1) the advocated expansion of the evaluative space, moving from utility to health, may have represented in reality a narrowing of it; (2) it operates using non-explicit considerations of equity; (3) it still holds the issue of "inability to desire" of unprivileged people being considered the best judges of weighing the criteria used to building the health measures; and (4) there is controversial empirical evidence about society members' values that support its assumptions. Overall, both paradigms show significant weaknesses, but the debate has still been within the realm of welfare economics, and even the new approaches to resource allocation in health care systems appear to be unable to escape from these boundaries.

The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress

Recent years have seen increased engagement amongst health economists with the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen and others. This paper focuses on the capability approach in relation to the evaluative space used for analysis within health economics. It considers the opportunities that the capability approach offers in extending this space, but also the methodological challenges associated with moving from the theoretical concepts to practical empirical applications. The paper then examines three 'families' of measures, Oxford Capability instruments (OxCap), Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT) and ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP), in terms of the methodological choices made in each case. The paper concludes by discussing some of the broader issues involved in making use of the capability approach in health economics. It also suggests that continued exploration of the impact of different methodological choices will be important in moving forward.

Valuing Treatments for Parkinson Disease Incorporating Process Utility: Performance of Best-Worst Scaling, Time Trade-Off, and Visual Analogue Scales

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare treatment profiles including both health outcomes and process characteristics in Parkinson disease using best-worst scaling (BWS), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue scales (VAS).

METHODS

From the model comprising of seven attributes with three levels, six unique profiles were selected representing process-related factors and health outcomes in Parkinson disease. A Web-based survey (N = 613) was conducted in a general population to estimate process-related utilities using profile-based BWS (case 2), multiprofile-based BWS (case 3), TTO, and VAS. The rank order of the six profiles was compared, convergent validity among methods was assessed, and individual analysis focused on the differentiation between pairs of profiles with methods used.

RESULTS

The aggregated health-state utilities for the six treatment profiles were highly comparable for all methods and no rank reversals were identified. On the individual level, the convergent validity between all methods was strong; however, respondents differentiated less in the utility of closely related treatment profiles with a VAS or TTO than with BWS. For TTO and VAS, this resulted in nonsignificant differences in mean utilities for closely related treatment profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that all methods are equally able to measure process-related utility when the aim is to estimate the overall value of treatments. On an individual level, such as in shared decision making, BWS allows for better prioritization of treatment alternatives, especially if they are closely related. The decision-making problem and the need for explicit trade-off between attributes should determine the choice for a method.

Outcomes in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Health, Capabilities and Subjective Wellbeing

Public health programmes tend to be complex and may combine social strategies with aspects of empowerment, capacity building and knowledge across sectors. The nature of the programmes means that some effects are likely to occur outside the healthcare sector; this breadth impacts on the choice of health and non-health outcomes to measure and value in an economic evaluation. Employing conventional outcome measures in evaluations of public health has been questioned. There are concerns that such measures are too narrow, overlook important dimensions of programme effect and, thus, lead to such interventions being undervalued. This issue is of particular importance for low-income and middle-income countries, which face considerable budget constraints, yet deliver a large proportion of health activities within public health programmes. The need to develop outcome measures, which include broader measures of quality of life, has given impetus to the development of a variety of new, holistic approaches, including Sen's capability framework and measures of subjective wellbeing. Despite their promise, these approaches have not yet been widely applied, perhaps because they present significant methodological challenges. This paper outlines the methodological challenges for the identification and measurement of broader outcomes of public health interventions in economic evaluation in low-income and middle-income countries.

Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare is a key determinant of health system performance. However, there is no widely accepted priority setting evaluation framework. We reviewed literature with the aim of developing and proposing a framework for the evaluation of macro and meso level healthcare priority setting practices.

METHODS

We systematically searched Econlit, PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCOhost databases and supplemented this with searches in Google Scholar, relevant websites and reference lists of relevant papers. A total of 31 papers on evaluation of priority setting were identified. These were supplemented by broader theoretical literature related to evaluation of priority setting. A conceptual review of selected papers was undertaken.

RESULTS

Based on a synthesis of the selected literature, we propose an evaluative framework that requires that priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels of the health system meet the following conditions: (1) Priority setting decisions should incorporate both efficiency and equity considerations as well as the following outcomes; (a) Stakeholder satisfaction, (b) Stakeholder understanding, (c) Shifted priorities (reallocation of resources), and (d) Implementation of decisions. (2) Priority setting processes should also meet the procedural conditions of (a) Stakeholder engagement, (b) Stakeholder empowerment, (c) Transparency, (d) Use of evidence, (e) Revisions, (f) Enforcement, and (g) Being grounded on community values.

CONCLUSION

Available frameworks for the evaluation of priority setting are mostly grounded on procedural requirements, while few have included outcome requirements. There is, however, increasing recognition of the need to incorporate both consequential and procedural considerations in priority setting practices. In this review, we adapt an integrative approach to develop and propose a framework for the evaluation of priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels that draws from these complementary schools of thought.

Proceduralism and its role in economic evaluation and priority setting in health

This paper provides a critical overview of Gavin Mooney's proceduralist approach to economic evaluation and priority setting in health. Proceduralism is the notion that the social value attached to alternative courses of action should be determined not only by outcomes, but also processes. Mooney's brand of proceduralism was unique and couched within a broader critique of 'neo-liberal' economics. It operated on a number of levels. At the micro level of the individual program, he pioneered the notion that 'process utility' could be valued and measured within economic evaluation. At a macro level, he developed a framework in which the social objective of equity was defined by procedural justice in which communitarian values were used as the basis for judging how resources should be allocated across the health system. Finally, he applied the notion of procedural justice to further our understanding of the political economy of resource allocation; highlighting how fairness in decision making processes can overcome the sometimes intractable zero-sum resource allocation problem. In summary, his contributions to this field have set the stage for innovative programs of research to help in developing health policies and programs that are both in alignment with community values and implementable.

Priority-setting for evidence-based health outreach in community-based organizations: A mixed-methods study in three Massachusetts communities

Priority setting, or determining how to best allocate limited resources, is an important first step for evidence-based public health approaches in community-based organizations (CBOs), but guidance for such work is limited. This study aims to study drivers of priority setting and the way CBOs use data for this work. Data come from PLANET MassCONECT, a Community-Based Participatory Research project focused on knowledge translation among CBOs targeting the underserved in Boston, Lawrence, and Worcester, MA. We conducted four focus group discussions with CBO staff members (31 participants) in 2008 and a survey of 214 CBO staff members in 2009. Multiple, often competing factors appear to drive priority setting, including data, funding, partnerships, and community preferences. The process may be hindered by challenges related to finding, evaluating, and utilizing data for priority setting. Supporting CBOs in efforts to use data effectively and incorporate context into systematic priority-setting processes is vital.

Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation

PURPOSE

Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence-based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project.

FINDINGS

A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory--methods, utilization, and valuing--identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

Claims on health care: a decision-making framework for equity, with application to treatment for HIV/AIDS in South Africa

Trying to determine how best to allocate resources in health care is especially difficult when resources are severely constrained, as is the case in all developing countries. This is particularly true in South Africa currently where the HIV epidemic adds significantly to a health service already overstretched by the demands made upon it.

This paper proposes a framework for determining how best to allocate scarce health care resources in such circumstances. This is based on communitarian claims. The basis of possible claims considered include: the need for health care, specified both as illness and capacity to benefit; whether or not claimants have personal responsibility in the conditions that have generated their health care need; relative deprivation or disadvantage; and the impact of services on the health of society and on the social fabric. Ways of determining these different claims in practice and the weights to be attached to them are also discussed.

The implications for the treatment of HIV/AIDS in South Africa are spelt out.

A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of the Australian Indigenous population

Background

Efficiency and equity are both important policy objectives in resource allocation. The discipline of health economics has traditionally focused on maximising efficiency, however addressing inequities in health also requires consideration. Methods to incorporate equity within economic evaluation techniques range from qualitative judgements to quantitative outcomes-based equity weights. Yet, due to definitional uncertainties and other inherent limitations, no method has been universally adopted to date. This paper proposes an alternative cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of interventions delivered from primary health care services.

Methods

Equity is defined in terms of 'access' to health services, with the vertical equity objective to achieve 'equitable access for unequal need'. Using the Australian Indigenous population as an illustrative case study, the magnitude of the equity weight is constructed using the ratio of the costs of providing specific interventions via Indigenous primary health care services compared with the costs of the same interventions delivered via mainstream services. Applying this weight to the costs of subsequent interventions deflates the costs of provision via Indigenous health services, and thus makes comparisons with mainstream more equitable when applied during economic evaluation.

Results

Based on achieving 'equitable access', existing measures of health inequity are suitable for establishing 'need', however the magnitude of health inequity is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of resources required to redress it. Rather, equitable access may be better measured using appropriate methods of health service delivery for the target group. 'Equity of access' also suggests a focus on the processes of providing equitable health care rather than on outcomes, and therefore supports application of equity weights to the cost side rather than the outcomes side of the economic equation.

Conclusion

Cost-based weights have the potential to provide a pragmatic method of equity weight construction which is both understandable to policy makers and sensitive to the needs of target groups. It could improve the evidence base for resource allocation decisions, and be generalised to other disadvantaged groups who share similar concepts of equity. Development of this decision-making tool represents a potentially important avenue for further health economics research.

Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics

This paper explores the spread of ideas within health economics, in relation to the impact of the capability approach to date and the extent to which it might impact in the future. The paper uses UK decision making to illustrate this spread of ideas. Within health economics, Culyer used the capability approach in developing the extra-welfarist perspective (where health status directly influences which social state is preferred). It is not a direct application of capability as the evaluation's focus remains narrow; the concern is with functioning, and maximisation is retained. Culyer's work provided a theoretical basis for using quality-adjusted life-years in decision making and this perspective is accepted as the basis for evaluation by the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). To the extent that extra-welfarism represents a capability approach, capabilities influence NICE's decision making and hence UK health care provision. This paper explores the extent to which extra-welfarism draws on the capability approach; the spread of extra-welfarist ideas; and recent interest in more direct applications of the capability approach.

Exploring evidence-policy linkages in health research plans: a case study from six countries

The complex evidence-policy interface in low and middle income country settings is receiving increasing attention. Future Health Systems (FHS): Innovations for Equity, is a research consortium conducting health systems explorations in six Asian and African countries: Bangladesh, India, China, Afghanistan, Uganda, and Nigeria. The cross-country research consortium provides a unique opportunity to explore the research-policy interface. Three key activities were undertaken during the initial phase of this five-year project. First, key considerations in strengthening evidence-policy linkages in health system research were developed by FHS researchers through workshops and electronic communications. Four key considerations in strengthening evidence-policy linkages are postulated: development context; research characteristics; decision-making processes; and stakeholder engagement. Second, these four considerations were applied to research proposals in each of the six countries to highlight features in the research plans that potentially strengthen the research-policy interface and opportunities for improvement. Finally, the utility of the approach for setting research priorities in health policy and systems research was reflected upon. These three activities yielded interesting findings. First, developmental consideration with four dimensions - poverty, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and health shocks - provides an entry point in examining research-policy interfaces in the six settings. Second, research plans focused upon on the ground realities in specific countries strengthens the interface. Third, focusing on research prioritized by decision-makers, within a politicized health arena, enhances chances of research influencing action. Lastly, early and continued engagement of multiple stakeholders, from local to national levels, is conducive to enhanced communication at the interface. The approach described has four main utilities: first, systematic analyses of research proposals using key considerations ensure such issues are incorporated into research proposals; second, the exact meaning, significance, and inter-relatedness of these considerations can be explored within the research itself; third, cross-country learning can be enhanced; and finally, translation of evidence into action may be facilitated. Health systems research proposals in low and middle income countries should include reflection on transferring research findings into policy. Such deliberations may be informed by employing the four key considerations suggested in this paper in analyzing research proposals.

Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism

'Extra-welfarism' has received some attention in health economics, yet there is little consensus on what distinguishes it from more conventional 'welfarist economics'. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of each in order to make a systematic comparison of the ways in which they evaluate alternative social states. The focus, though this is not intended to be exclusive, is on health. Specifically, we highlight four areas in which the two schools differ: (i) the outcomes considered relevant in an evaluation; (ii) the sources of valuation of the relevant outcomes; (iii) the basis of weighting of relevant outcomes and (iv) interpersonal comparisons. We conclude that these differences are substantive.

Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices

Objectives:Many existing healthcare interventions diffused before modern evidence-based standards of clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is growing as a priority for international health policy, both for improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. Australian policy stakeholders were canvassed to assess their perspectives on the challenges and the nature of disinvestment.

Methods:Senior health policy stakeholders from Australia were criterion and snow-ball sampled (to identify opinion leaders). Participants were primed with a potential disinvestment case study and took part in individual semistructured interviews that focused on mechanisms and challenges within health policy to support disinvestment. Interviews were taped and transcribed for thematic analysis. Participant comments were de-identified.

Results:Ten stakeholders were interviewed before saturation was reached. Three primary themes were identified. (i) The current focus on assessment of new and emerging health technologies/practices and lack of attention toward existing practices is due to resource limitations and methodological complexity. Participants considered a parallel model to that of Australia's current assessment process for new medical technologies is best-positioned to facilitate disinvestment. (ii) To advance the disinvestment agenda requires an explicit focus on the potential for cost-savings coupled with improved quality of care. (iii) Support (financial and collaborative) is needed for research advancement in the methodological underpinnings associated with health technology assessment and for disinvestment specifically.

Conclusions:In this exploratory study, stakeholders support the notion that systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality, and safety of health care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.

A fair range of choice: justifying maximum patient choice in the British National Health Service

In this paper I put forward an ethical argument for the provision of extensive patient choice by the British National Health Service. I base this argument on traditional liberal rights to freedom of choice, on a welfare right to health care, and on a view of health as values-based. I argue that choice, to be ethically sustainable on this basis, must be values-based and rational. I also consider whether the British taxpayer may be persuadable with regard to the moral acceptability of patient choice, making use of Rawls' theory of political liberalism in this context. I identify issues that present problems in terms of public acceptance of choice, and also identify a boundary issue with regard to public health choices as against individual choices.

Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices

BACKGROUND

Internationally, many health care interventions were diffused prior to the standard use of assessments of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is a growing priority for health care systems for reasons of improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. In this paper we examine key challenges for disinvestment from these interventions and explore potential policy-related avenues to advance a disinvestment agenda.

RESULTS

We examine five key challenges in the area of policy driven disinvestment: 1) lack of resources to support disinvestment policy mechanisms; 2) lack of reliable administrative mechanisms to identify and prioritise technologies and/or practices with uncertain clinical and cost-effectiveness; 3) political, clinical and social challenges to removing an established technology or practice; 4) lack of published studies with evidence demonstrating that existing technologies/practices provide little or no benefit (highlighting complexity of design) and; 5) inadequate resources to support a research agenda to advance disinvestment methods. Partnerships are required to involve government, professional colleges and relevant stakeholder groups to put disinvestment on the agenda. Such partnerships could foster awareness raising, collaboration and improved health outcome data generation and reporting. Dedicated funds and distinct processes could be established within the Medical Services Advisory Committee and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to, a) identify technologies and practices for which there is relative uncertainty that could be the basis for disinvestment analysis, and b) conduct disinvestment assessments of selected item(s) to address existing practices in an analogous manner to the current focus on new and emerging technology. Finally, dedicated funding and cross-disciplinary collaboration is necessary to build health services and policy research capacity, with a focus on advancing disinvestment research methodologies and decision support tools.

CONCLUSION

The potential over-utilisation of less than effective clinical practices and the potential under-utilisation of effective clinical practices not only result in less than optimal care but also fragmented, inefficient and unsustainable resource allocation. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality and safety of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.

Economic evaluation of services for a National Health scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework

In this paper we argue that the usual framework for evaluating health services may need modification in the context of a National Health Scheme (NHS). Some costs and benefits may need to be ignored or discounted, others included at face value, and some transfer payments included in the decision algorithm. In contrast with the standard framework, we argue that economic evaluation in the context of an NHS should focus on 'social transfers' between taxpayers and beneficiaries, and that the nature and scope of these transfers is determined by the level of social generosity. Some of the implications of a modified framework are illustrated with a re-examination of (i) costs and transfer payments, (ii) unrelated future costs, (iii) moral hazard, and (iv) the rule that marginal costs should equal marginal benefits. We argue that an explicitly 'fairness-based' framework is needed for the evaluation of services in an NHS. In contrast, the usual welfare economic theoretic framework facilitates the sidelining of issues of fairness.