Priority-setting in New Zealand: translating principles into practice

Equity in healthcare resource allocation decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify elements of endorsed definitions of equity in healthcare and classify domains of these definitions so that policy makers, managers, clinicians, and politicians can form an operational definition of equity that reflects the values and preferences of the society they serve.

DESIGN

Systematic review where verbatim text describing explicit and implicit definitions of equity were extracted and subjected to a thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

The full holdings of the AMED, CINAHL plus, OVID Medline, Scopus, PsychInfo and ProQuest (ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, ProQuest Social Science Journals) were individually searched in April 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they provided an original, explicit or implicit definition of equity in regards to healthcare resource allocation decision making. Papers that only cited earlier definitions of equity and provided no new information or extensions to this definition were excluded.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 74 papers appropriate for this review; 60 of these provided an explicit definition of equity, with a further 14 papers discussing implicit elements of equity that the authors endorsed in regards to healthcare resource allocation decision making. FIVE KEY THEMES EMERGED: i) Equalisation across the health service supply/access/outcome chain, ii) Need or potential to benefit, iii) Groupings of equalisation, iv) Caveats to equalisation, and v) Close enough is good enough.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great inconsistency in definitions of equity endorsed by different authors. Operational definitions of equity need to be more explicit in addressing these five thematic areas before they can be directly applied to healthcare resource allocation decisions.

Health economics and health policy: experiences from New Zealand

Health economics has had a significant impact on the New Zealand health system over the past 30 years. In this paper, I set out a framework for thinking about health economics, give some historical background to New Zealand and the New Zealand health system, and discuss examples of how health economics has influenced thinking about the organisation of the health sector and priority setting. I conclude the paper with overall observations about the role of health economics in health policy in New Zealand, also identifying where health economics has not made the contribution it could and where further influence might be beneficial.

Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health

INTRODUCTION

The health of Indigenous Australians is worse than that of other Australians. Most of the determinants of health are preventable and the poor health outcomes are inequitable. The Australian Government recently pledged to close that health gap. One possible way is to improve the priority setting process to ensure transparency and the use of evidence such as epidemiology, equity and economic evaluation.The purpose of this research was to elicit the perceptions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous decision-makers on several issues related to priority setting in Indigenous-specific health care services. Specifically, we aimed to:1. identify the criteria used to set priorities in Indigenous-specific health care services;2. determine the level of uptake of economic evaluation evidence by decision-makers and how to improve its uptake; and 3. identify how the priority setting process can be improved from the perspective of decision-makers.

METHODS

We used a paper survey instrument, adapted from Mitton and colleagues' work, and a face-to-face interview approach to elicit decision-makers' perceptions in Indigenous-specific health care in Victoria, Australia. We used mixed methods to analyse data from the survey. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results were reported as numbers and percentages.

RESULTS

The size of the health burden; sustainability and acceptability of interventions; historical trends/patterns; and efficiency are key criteria for making choices in Indigenous health in Victoria. There is a need for an explicit priority setting approach, which is systematic, and is able to use available data/evidence, such as economic evaluation evidence. The involvement of Indigenous Australians in the process would potentially make the process acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

An economic approach to priority setting is a potentially acceptable and useful tool for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). It has the ability to use evidence and ensure due process at the same time. The use of evidence can ensure that health outcomes for Indigenous peoples can be maximised - hence, increase the potential for 'closing the gap' between Indigenous and other Australians.

Evaluating 'success' in programme budgeting and marginal analysis: a literature review

OBJECTIVES

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority-setting toolkit which aims to assist decision-makers in identifying the most efficient use of resources. The last systematic literature review on PBMA was published in 2001 and evaluated success in applying PBMA using the criteria of 'reallocation of resources' or the 'setting of priorities'. Our objective was to re-evaluate applications of PBMA in terms of these criteria separately, summarize different evaluation methods of PBMA and extend the above review by considering all PBMA applications since 2001.

METHODS

Systematic literature review. Information was sought from four general medical electronic databases. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used.

RESULTS

PBMA was successful in 52% of cases when success was defined in terms of the participants gaining a better understanding of the area under interest; in 65% of cases when success was defined as 'implementation of all or some of the advisory panel's recommendations'; in 48% of the studies when success was defined in terms of disinvesting or resource reallocation; and in 22% when success was defined in terms of adopting the framework for future use.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of success is clearly influenced by how success is defined. There is a need for a broadly accepted definition of success to be used when evaluating PBMA applications so to enable direct comparisons of studies. This evaluatory component needs to be adjacent to PBMA and not a separate procedure.

Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities.We review explicit priority setting efforts in Norway, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the state of Oregon in the US. The approaches used can be divided into those centered on outlining principles versus those that define practices. In order to establish the main lessons from their experiences we consider (1) the process each country used, (2) criteria to judge the success of these efforts, (3) which approaches seem to have met these criteria, and (4) using their successes and failures as a guide, how to proceed in setting priorities. We demonstrate that there is little evidence that establishment of a values framework for priority setting has had any effect on health policy, nor is there evidence that priority setting exercises have led to the envisaged ideal of an open and participatory public involvement in decision making.

"Prioritization": rationing health care in New Zealand

The amount allocated to publicly funded health care for 2005/06 in New Zealand, a small country of some four million people, is $NZ 9.68 billion, or 6.2% of GDP, an increase from the 5.7% of GDP in 2000/01. The Minister of Finance has recently signalled that spending in health and education has outpaced economic growth, and that the present rate of growth in health spending, which has grown at about 7% a year over the last decade, is unsustainable. Despite these big funding increases in recent years, the perception of New Zealanders is that the extra spending has made little difference, at least to hospital services and to people’s ability to access treatment. In surveys, health emerges as a leading concern for New Zealanders. Their concern is apparently less about the quality of services, than about their ability to access treatment - whether they will be able to access timely health care when they or their family members need it.

The evolution of PBMA: towards a macro-level priority setting framework for health regions

To date, relatively little work on priority setting has been carried out at a macro-level across major portfolios within integrated health care organizations. This paper describes a macro marginal analysis (MMA) process for setting priorities and allocating resources in health authorities, based on work carried out in a major urban health region in Alberta, Canada. MMA centers around an expert working group of managers and clinicians who are charged with identifying areas for resource re-allocation on an ongoing basis. Trade-offs between services are based on locally defined criteria and are informed by multiple inputs such as evidence from the literature and local expert opinion. The approach is put forth as a significant improvement on historical resource allocation patterns.

Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity

As resources in health care are scarce, health authorities and other health organizations are charged with determining how best to spend limited resources. While a number of formal approaches to priority setting within health authorities have been used internationally, there has been limited success with such activity, particularly across major service portfolios. This participatory action research project instituted a novel priority setting framework, coined macro-marginal analysis (MMA), in a fully integrated urban health region in Alberta, Canada. The focus of MMA is on identifying areas for service growth and areas for resource release, then determining, based on pre-defined, locally generated criteria, if actual shifts or re-allocation of resources should occur. For fiscal year 2002/03, the Calgary Health Region identified over 40 M dollars in resource releases (approximately 3% of the total budget), which were made available for servicing the deficit, and more importantly for our purposes, re-investing in service growth areas. The MMA framework is pragmatic in nature and has the ability to incorporate relevant evidence directly into the decision-making process. This work constitutes a significant advancement in health economics, and responds where previous priority setting approaches have failed in that it allows decision-makers to achieve genuine re-allocation of resources with the aim of improving population health or better meeting other important criteria.

From home, to market, to headquarters, to home. Relocating health services planning and purchasing in New Zealand

Health sector restructuring has been in vogue, but no country has engaged in as much health sector restructuring as New Zealand where, in a decade, there have been four different public health sector structures. This article discusses New Zealand's four structures with an emphasis on relocating the critical functions of health care planning and purchasing, and on the development of the present district health board system. The four structures include: an area health board system (1989-1991) with planning and purchasing located at "home" in local areas and closely aligned with service provision; a competitive internal market system (1993-1996) which separated planning and purchasing from service provision; a centralised system with a "headquarters" controlling planning and purchasing (1997-1999) while maintaining the distance from provision; and the district health board system currently under development (1999-) which sees purchasing and planning sent home again to regions and linked closely with service provision. The present system entails the devolution of considerable responsibility to the local level, within a framework of strong central government control. Based on New Zealand's experience, the article notes that all but the market structure appear to have provided an adequate environment for effective health care planning and purchasing.