Measuring public priorities for insurable health care

The public's priorities in health services

BACKGROUND

Rationing in health services cannot be solved only by cost-effective analysis because social values play a central role in the difficult trade-off dilemma of prioritizing some service over others.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relative importance ascribed by the public to selected components of health services, in the national allocation of resources as well as in their personal insurance.

METHODS

A telephone survey of a representative sample of the Israeli adult population (N = 1225). Two versions of the questionnaire were used. At the national level, interviewees were asked to assume they were the Minister of Health. At the personal level, interviewees were asked to choose items to be included in their personal complementary health insurance.

RESULTS

Check-ups for early disease detection and nursing care for the frail elderly got the highest support for extra budget as well as to be included in personal insurance. Other items presented were fertility treatments, cardiac rehabilitation, mental health, dental health, programmes for preventive medicine and health promotion, subsidizing supplemental insurance for the poor, additional staff for primary clinics and building a new hospital. The lowest support was for alternative medicine and for cosmetic surgery. No subgroup in the Israeli society presented a different first priority.

CONCLUSION

The Israeli public does not give high priority to 'nice to have' services but their selections are 'mature' and responsible. Rationing in health care requires listening to the public even if there are still many methodological limitations on how to reflect the public's opinion.

Laypersons' choices and deliberations for mental health coverage

Insurance coverage for mental health services has historically lagged behind other types of health services. We used a simulation exercise in which groups of laypersons deliberate about healthcare tradeoffs. Groups deciding for their "community" were more likely to select mental health coverage than individuals. Individual prioritization of mental health coverage, however, increased after group discussion. Participants discussed: value, cost and perceived need for mental health coverage, moral hazard and community benefit. A deliberative exercise in priority-setting led a significant proportion of persons to reconsider decisions about coverage for mental health services. Deliberations illustrated public-spiritedness, stigma and significant polarity of views.

Clinical management and prioritization criteria. Finnish experiences

The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of 14 prioritization criteria from nurses', doctors', local politicians' and the general public's perspective. Respondents (nurses, n = 682, doctors, n = 837 politicians, n = 1,133 and the general public, n = 1,178) received a questionnaire with 16 imaginary patient cases, each containing 2-3 different prioritization criteria. The subjects were asked to indicate how important it was for them that the treatments in the presented patient cases be subsidized by the community. All respondents preferred treatments for poor people and children. With the exception of the doctors, the three other study groups also prioritized elderly patients. Treatment for institutionalised patients, those with self-induced disease, diseases with both poor and good prognosis, and mild disease were given low priorities. Priority setting in health care should be regarded as a continuous process because of changes in attitudes. However, the best method for surveying opinions and ethical principles concerning prioritization has not yet been discovered.

Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities

In North Staffordshire, the Achieving Sustainable Quality in Maternity (ASQUAM) meetings provide the programme for clinical guidelines and audit over the following year. The ASQUAM clinical effectiveness programme has attempted to address a number of the issues identified as obstacles to informed democratic prioritization. For example, it became clear that a number of topics raised were actually research questions. The organizers therefore decided to split the fourth ASQUAM day into an 'audit' morning and a 'research' afternoon. The meeting organized by RJ, CR and PJ in partnership with the Midwives Information and Resource Service and the National Childbirth Trust, was timed to allow the research ideas to feed into the national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. This meeting was designed to increase the profile of ASQUAM amongst consumers and to increase their representation at the meeting. Objectives were to choose a new set of research priorities for the year 2000, and to ascertain the voting pattern of comparison to health professionals. There was overall agreement in terms of priorities, with the consumer group prioritizing 8 of the 10 topics chosen by the professionals (or 10 of the 11). No significant differences between the proportions of voted cast for each topic by professionals and consumers were found apart from topic 20. The numbers of consumers were small which does limit the number the validity of statistical comparisons. Nevertheless, it is clear that voting patterns were similar. Overall the process suggests that democratic prioritization is a viable option and one that may become essential within the framework of clinical and research governance.

Insurance benefit preferences of the low-income uninsured

OBJECTIVE

A frequently cited obstacle to universal insurance is the lack of consensus about what benefits to offer in an affordable insurance package. This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of providing uninsured patients the opportunity to define their own benefit package within cost constraints.

DESIGN

Structured group exercises.

SETTING

Community setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Uninsured individuals recruited from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina.

MEASUREMENTS

Insurance choices were measured using a simulation exercise, CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together). Participants designed managed care plans, individually and as groups, by selecting from 15 service categories having varied levels of restriction (e.g., formulary, copayments) within the constraints of a fixed monthly premium comparable to the typical per member/per month managed care premium paid by U.S. employers.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four individuals who were predominantly male (70%), African American (55%), and socioeconomically disadvantaged (53% earned <$15,000 annually) participated in 22 groups and were able to design health benefit packages individually and in groups. All 22 groups chose to cover hospitalization, pharmacy, dental, and specialty care, and 21 groups chose primary care and mental health. Although individuals' choices differed from their groups' selections, 86% of participants were willing to abide by group choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups of low-income uninsured individuals are able to identify acceptable benefit packages that are comparable in cost but differ in benefit design from managed care contracts offered to many U.S. employees today.

Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public

The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to measure attitudes to health care prioritisation criteria among the Finnish general public (n = 1156), politicians (n = 1096), doctors (n = 803) and nurses (n = 667), altogether 3722 subjects. The questionnaire consisted of questions on background data, a list of seven alternative prioritisation methods and a list of 11 possible criteria for health care prioritisation. The most acceptable prioritisation methods were increased treatment fees and restricting expensive treatments and examinations. Only a few supported administrative prioritisation decisions. One third of the general public indicated that they did not accept any limitations in health care, whereas only 5% of doctors agreed with them. More doctors accepted prioritisation methods than respondents in other groups. Patient is a child, patient is an elderly person, severity of the disease and prognosis of the disease were the most accepted prioritisation criteria. Politicians and the general public also accepted self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation crieteria. Logistic regression analysis of the general public respondents demonstrated that male gender, higher education and higher personal income were associated with acceptance of most prioritisation criteria. Similarly, older age of the respondent was associated with acceptance of self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation criteria.

How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that people favor allocating resources to severely ill patients even when they benefit less from treatment than do less severely ill patients. This study explores the stability of people's preferences for treating severely ill patients.

METHODS

This study surveyed prospective jurors in Philadelphia and asked them to decide how they would allocate scarce health care resources between a severely ill group of patients who would improve a little with treatment and moderately ill patients who would improve considerably with treatment. Subjects were randomized to receive one of six questionnaire versions, which altered the wording of the scenarios and altered whether subjects were given an explicit option of dividing resources evenly between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy nine subjects completed surveys. The preference subjects placed on allocating resources to severely ill patients depended on relatively minor wording changes in the scenarios. In addition, when given the explicit option of dividing resources evenly between the two groups of patients, the majority of subjects chose to do so.

CONCLUSION

People's preferences for allocating resources to severely ill patients can be significantly decreased by subtle wording changes in scenarios. However, this study adds to evidence suggesting that many people place priority on allocating resources to severely ill patients, even when they would benefit less from treatment than others.

The health insurance puzzle: a new approach to assessing patient coverage preferences

Previous studies of preferences for health insurance benefits have required individuals to make a series of complex and repetitive decisions, and have assumed that all insured benefits are desirable. This study reports the development and testing of a simple, innovative instrument to measure preferences for health insurance benefits. The newly developed instrument (Puzzle) is designed to allow subjects to select health benefits in a way that underscores the trade-offs dictated by budgets and costs. A "puzzle-like" frame representing budget constraints and "puzzle piece" benefit cards proportionately sized to represent the premium price of a single year's coverage comprise the instrument. In a comparison procedure (Money Game), participants "purchase" individual benefits by exchanging "play" money for benefit tokens. The Puzzle's utility was assessed by examining the convergence of results from both instruments and the subject's ratings of and preference for the instruments. One hundred five elderly Medicare enrollees seen in the general Internal Medicine outpatient clinic of a major southeastern teaching hospital were interviewed. Subjects answered interviewer-administered questionnaires and completed both the Puzzle and the Money Game. Both McNemar's test and Kendall's tau-b indicated a high degree of concordance between benefit choices made using the two instruments. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that the Puzzle was clear, easy to use, understandable, and preferred to the Money Game. The results suggest that the Puzzle is a promising tool for assessing health insurance coverage preferences under circumstances of limited expenditures, which can be modified for use with various populations who face limited insurance benefits.

Older Medicare enrolees' choices for insured services

OBJECTIVES

The Medicare Trust Fund is expected to be bankrupt in the next decade, thus threatening the viability of the Medicare Program. We have ascertained what Medicare enrollees' priorities for insured services would be, and why, if it were fiscally necessary to limit Medicare benefits to maintain the viability of the Program.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey using anonymous, inperson interviews and an innovative instrument to elicit choices.

SETTING

General Internal Medicine outpatient clinic at a university teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred five adults, 65 years of age and older, who had primary care physician visits between July and September 1995.

MEASUREMENTS

Desire to personally select insurance benefits, insurance benefit choices, and the reasons for selection or rejection of benefits.

RESULTS

Subjects of various educational and economic backgrounds were able to carry out the selection process with relative case, and four-fifths of respondents preferred to make their own choices about insured services. The most frequently selected services were hospitalization, outpatient care, prescription drugs, eye care, and home care, in descending order. Subjects selected 52 different combinations of services. Only 2% of respondents picked the current Medicare service package. The reasons given for selection varied by service; cost and current or anticipated need for a service were the most frequently cited forces driving the choices made.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that Medicare enrollees prefer some element of choice about their health insurance coverage. Their choices vary widely and differ from the current Medicare package.

Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities

Members of the public can adopt any one of at least three roles when providing input to public decision-making: taxpayer, collective community decision-maker, or patient. Each of these potential roles can be mapped onto three areas of public policy decision-making in health care: funding levels and organization for the system, the services we choose to offer under public funding, and the characteristics of those who should receive the offered services. The increasing desire to involve the public across the spectrum of health care decision-making has yet to result in a clear delineation of either which of the areas are most appropriate for public input or which of the roles we wish individual participants to adopt. The average citizen (as opposed to the self-interested patient, the provider or the manager) has so far shown little interest in contributing and rarely has the requisite skills for most of the tasks asked of him or her. The widespread motivation of governments and others for seeking public input appears to be to get the public to take or share ownership in the tough rationing choices consequent on fiscal retrenchment in health care. Evaluation of existing literature leads to the conclusion that there are only limited areas where we might wish to obtain significant public input if we adopt this widespread policy motivation. Specifically, the general public should be asked to give input to, but not determine, priorities across the broad service categories that could potentially be publicly funded. Members of the public have neither the interest nor the skills to do this at the level of specific services. The role expected of such members of the public should be made explicit and should focus on collective views of the community good rather than self-interested views of individual benefit. Groups of patients, however, should be the source of input when socio-demographic characteristics are being used to decide who should receive offered services. The role expected of these consumers is not, however, to take a self-interested perspective; rather, it is to adopt Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to reflect compassionate views of priorities across socio-demographic characteristics. Finally, there appears to be no best method for obtaining public input that overcomes the common problems of poor information upon which to base priorities, difficulty in arriving at consensus, poor representativeness of participants, and lack of opportunity for informed discussion prior to declaring priorities. There is some suggestion, however, that panels of citizens or patients, convened on an ongoing basis and provided with the opportunity to acquire relevant information and discuss its implications prior to making consensus recommendations, offer the most promising way forward.

Quality of care and cost-containment in managed mental health: policy, education, research, advocacy

Managed mental health care cost-containment practices of risk-benefit analysis, provider usage, manipulation of supply and demand, gate keeping, medical necessity, and formulation have adversely affected quality of care. Improved mental health services are dependent upon redefining mental health problems and understanding inequities created by medicalization as means to limit access to services. This dilemma can be addressed by development of mental health policy, public education, and political advocacy. An immediate role for professional psychology is found in the creation of a research agenda that documents empirically supported interventions for specific mental health problems, mechanisms of effective and acceptable service-delivery, and identification of providers with demonstrated clinical skills, including cultural competencies.

Comparison of doctors', nurses', politicians' and public attitudes to health care priorities

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in attitudes concerning prioritisation in health care held by doctors, nurses, local politicians and the general public.

METHODS

Four groups were established: a population sample of 2000 subjects, aged 18-70 years; a random sample of 1500 doctors of working age; a random sample of 1000 nurses of working age; and a sample of 2200 politicians involved in health and social care administration, mostly at the municipal level (altogether 6700 subjects). The main questionnaire contained, among other things, a list of 12 statements concerning ethical decisions regarding prioritisation in health care. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement.

RESULTS

Most respondents in all the groups felt able to express an opinion on the statements. Despite considerable professional and cultural differences between groups, the views were generally similar. On the whole, respondents supported liberal policies in which the community took responsibility for subsidising health care. When differences between groups occurred, it was usually the doctors who held discordant views. Doctors were less inclined to consider a patient's economic status as a determinant of priority for treatment than the other three groups. Both doctors and nurses were less punitive towards patients with self-induced diseases. And doctors and politicians were more likely to feel further cuts in health care expenditure were possible than was true for nurses and the public.

CONCLUSIONS

While considerable uniformity of opinion exists on ethical issues of prioritisation between the principal interested parties, the views of doctors differ substantially on some matters. If prioritisation was left entirely to doctors, health care provision would not reflect the views of other groups in some important ways.

Random paired scenarios--a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine

OBJECTIVE

This article describes a method for investigating attitudes towards prioritisation in medicine.

SETTING

University of Kuopio, Finland.

DESIGN

The method consisted of a set of 24 paired scenarios, which were imaginary patient cases, each containing three different ethical indicators randomly selected from a list of indicators (for example, child, rich patient, severe disease etc.). The scenarios were grouped into 12 random pairs and the procedure was repeated four times, resulting in 12 scenario pairs arranged randomly in five different sets.

SURVEY

This method was tested with four groups of subjects (n = 8, n = 47, n = 104 and n = 36).

RESULTS

Children and patients with a severe disease were prioritised in all groups. The aged, patients with a mild disease and patients with a self-acquired disease were negatively prioritised in all groups. Poor or rich patients were prioritised in some groups but negatively prioritised in others.

CONCLUSIONS

The validity and reliability of this method are good and it is suitable for investigating attitudes towards medical prioritisation.