The relevance of personal characteristics in health care rationing: what the Australian public thinks and why

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).

Willingness to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures

OBJECTIVES

The need to improve the sustainability of public health expenditure, in a climate of growing pressure on national budgets, inevitably leads to a discussion about resource rationing, and the extent of society's responsibility for those expenditures. To contribute to this discussion empirically, this study evaluated the willingness of Portuguese respondents to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures through out-of-pocket payments.

STUDY DESIGN

A questionnaire addressed to the general public was developed, with 296 respondents. The survey was divided into three sections: (i) sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents; (ii) health-related habits; and (iii) willingness to pay other individuals' healthcare expenditures and, if so, how much.

METHODS

Logit and ordered logit models were applied.

RESULTS

Respondents were divided fairly even between those who were willing to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures and those who were not. Respondents with health insurance contracts were more willing to contribute, and the contribution value was higher. Having a degree-level education was associated with reduced willingness to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures, and reduced probability of paying a larger amount, which may be associated with holding individuals accountable for their choices. Considering self-reported risky behaviours, the respondents who consumed alcohol were more likely to be willing to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures, and to a greater extent, whereas smokers were less likely to pay larger amounts. These effects suggest that respondents with different unhealthy behaviours are not equally altruistic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the need to combine health policy and social beliefs. The respondents seem to be interested to discuss healthcare funding, given that they agreed to reveal their willingness to pay for other individuals' healthcare expenditures. Moreover, respondents' sociodemographic characteristics and health-related behaviours play a role in their willingness to contribute to social well-being through healthcare expenditures. The differences observed denote that no agreement exists regarding the extent of society's responsibility.

Citizens' preferences on healthcare expenditure allocation: evidence from Greece

BACKGROUND OF CONTEXT

Priority setting and resource allocation across various healthcare functions are critical issues in health policy and strategic decision making. As health resources are limited while there are so many health challenges to resolve, consumers and payers have to make difficult decisions about expenditure allocation.

OBJECTIVE

Our research focus on the (dis)agreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across broad healthcare functions, on whether this (dis)agreement is persistent, on whether various demographic factors amplify this (dis)agreement and to derive useful implications for public health policies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using survey data of 3029 citizens in Greece for the year 2012 and employing logit estimation techniques, we analysed the effect of demographic and other factors in shaping citizens' (dis)agreement with public health expenditure allocation.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate the important role of income, family members and residence in shaping citizens' preferences regarding health expenditure priorities in almost all healthcare functions, while other demographic factors such as job, age, gender and marital status do partly associate and play a significant role.

CONCLUSIONS

Government should encourage the citizens' participation in the decision-making process in order to eliminate the unveiled and significant disagreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across all healthcare functions.

The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation and treatment of critically ill newborn infants is associated with relatively high mortality, morbidity and cost. Guidelines relating to resuscitation have traditionally focused on the best interests of infants. There are, however, limited resources available in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), meaning that difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. This study explores the intuitions of lay people (non-health professionals) regarding resource allocation decisions in the NICU.

METHODS

The study design was a cross-sectional quantitative survey, consisting of 20 hypothetical rationing scenarios. There were 119 respondents who entered the questionnaire, and 109 who completed it. The respondents were adult US and Indian participants of the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Respondents were asked to decide which of two infants to treat in a situation of scarce resources. Demographic characteristics, personality traits and political views were recorded. Respondents were also asked to respond to a widely cited thought experiment involving rationing.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents, in all except one scenario, chose the utilitarian option of directing treatment to the infant with the higher chance of survival, higher life expectancy, less severe disability, and less expensive treatment. As discrepancy between outcomes decreased, however, there was a statistically significant increase in egalitarian responses and decrease in utilitarian responses in scenarios involving chance of survival (P = 0.001), life expectancy (P = 0.0001), and cost of treatment (P = 0.01). In the classic 'lifeboat' scenario, all but two respondents were utilitarian.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey suggests that in situations of scarcity and equal clinical need, non-health professionals support rationing of life-saving treatment based on probability of survival, duration of survival, cost of treatment or quality of life. However, where the difference in prognosis or cost is very small, non-health professionals preferred to give infants an equal chance of receiving treatment.

Urgency or Outcome as Guiding Principle for the Allocation of Deceased Donor Livers: A Questionnaire Survey Among Outpatients of a University Medical Department in Germany

INTRODUCTION

The sickest-first principle has been pursued in the allocation of donor livers for transplantation with the introduction of algorithms based on the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. In Germany outcomes of liver transplantation appear to be negatively influenced by the transplantation of patients with very high MELD scores and the use of donor organs with lower quality. Therefore, some have claimed, allocation should be based more on outcome-oriented criteria.

METHODS

A survey with binary questions (yes/no) regarding the appreciation of values concerning the allocation of donor livers was performed among general medical outpatients of a university hospital. End-stage liver disease patients were excluded. Two hundred four returned forms were analyzed. Percentages of valid answers are given.

RESULTS

In this study, 88%, 73%, and 41% of subjects answered they would be willing to undergo transplantation with an estimated outcome of 20%, 50%, and 80% 1-year mortality rate, respectively, for themselves. Choosing a possible recipient between 2 case examples, 68% of valid answers voted for the case with higher age and urgency and lower long-term survival. Seventy percent said urgency was more important than long-term outcome as a criterion for organ allocation. Under the assumption that urgency-based allocation would decrease average long-term survival of liver transplantation, 58% refused to deny even the sickest patients transplantation. Seventy-eight percent said that patients likely to achieve 50% long-term survival should not be denied liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

In our study a majority of subjects prioritize urgency and granting a chance to avert imminent death over long-term survival per procedure. Equitable distribution of chances for survival may be estimated more than outcome maximization in terms of aggregate life-years gained.

Should I pay for your risky behaviours? Evidence from London

We investigate the extent to which respondents from a general population sample in London (July-August 2011) agree or disagree with the NHS covering the healthcare costs related to five risky health behaviours: overeating, unhealthy diet, sedentary life, excess of alcohol, and smoking. For each behaviour, we also directly explore the main factors associated with the likelihood to agree or disagree. Half of the respondents (N=146) manifest agreement with the idea. Wider agreement exists for covering the costs associated smoking, heavy drinking, and sedentary lives than with overeating, or poor diets. With the exception of alcohol drinking and sedentary life, there is an almost one-to-one relationship between the agreement that the NHS should pay the healthcare costs associated with a specific behaviour, and the respondents' actual engagement in that behaviour. Those at higher risk of depending on publicly funded healthcare, are more likely to agree.

Social preferences for the inclusion of indirect benefits in the evaluation of publicly funded health services: results from an Australian survey

The inclusion of both monetary and non-monetary indirect benefits in economic evaluations of public health programmes and services can have significant distributive effects between patient groups. As a result, some patients may be advantaged and others disadvantaged for reasons not directly related to health outcomes or (direct) treatment costs. In pluralistic democracies, there is a case for consulting the community on the fairness of policies that have such distributive implications. This paper reports the results of two pilot studies aimed at uncovering the preferences of the Australian public for the inclusion of indirect benefits in the evaluation of services for its national health scheme, Medicare. The initial survey found some support for taking account of non-monetary indirect benefits – for example, the social contribution made by parents of young children and carers of elderly relatives. By contrast, there was little support for giving high taxpayers priority access to general Medicare services, to life-saving organ transplants, or to very costly drugs, despite the indirect social benefits of doing so. However, such support increased significantly in the follow-up study when the outcomes were characterised as certain, identifiable and health related, and the opportunity costs of failing to take account of indirect benefits were made very clear. The follow-up survey provided evidence of public scepticism about the willingness or ability of government to use additional tax receipts for socially beneficial purposes, and/or a preference for programmes and services that focus on health rather than welfare more generally.