1
|
Smids J, Bomhof CHC, Bunnik EM. 'Empathy counterbalancing' to mitigate the 'identified victim effect'? Ethical reflections on cognitive debiasing strategies to increase support for healthcare priority setting. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2024:jme-2023-109646. [PMID: 38408851 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2024] [Indexed: 02/28/2024]
Abstract
Priority setting is inevitable to control expenditure on expensive medicines, but citizen support is often hampered by the workings of the 'identified victim effect', that is, the greater willingness to spend resources helping identified victims than helping statistical victims. In this paper we explore a possible cognitive debiasing strategy that is being employed in discussions on healthcare priority setting, which we call 'empathy counterbalancing' (EC). EC is the strategy of directing attention to, and eliciting empathy for, those who might be harmed as a result of one-sided empathy for the very ill who needs expensive treatment. We argue that governments have good reasons to attempt EC because the identified victim effect distorts priority setting in ways that undermine procedural fairness. We briefly outline three areas of application for EC and suggest some possible mechanisms that might explain how EC might work, if at all. We then discuss four potential ethical concerns with EC. First, EC might have the counterproductive effect of reducing overall citizen support for public funding of expensive medical treatments, thereby undermining solidarity. Second, EC may give rise to a 'competition in suffering', which may have unintended side effects for patients who feature in attempts at EC. Third, there may be doubts about whether EC is effective. Fourth, it may be objected that EC comes down to emotional manipulation, which governments should avoid. We conclude that insofar these concerns are valid they may be adequately addressed, and that EC seems a promising strategy that merits further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jilles Smids
- Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Charlotte H C Bomhof
- Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline Maria Bunnik
- Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Boxebeld S, Geijsen T, Tuit C, Exel JV, Makady A, Maes L, van Agthoven M, Mouter N. Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes. Soc Sci Med 2024; 341:116536. [PMID: 38176245 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. METHODS We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). RESULTS On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. CONCLUSIONS The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sander Boxebeld
- Department of Health Economics, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | | | | | - Job van Exel
- Department of Health Economics, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Amr Makady
- Janssen-Cilag B.V., Breda, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Niek Mouter
- Populytics, Leiden, the Netherlands; Transport and Logistics Group, Faculty of Technology, Policy & Management (TPM), Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Baltussen R, Surgey G, Vassall A, Norheim OF, Chalkidou K, Siddiqi S, Nouhi M, Youngkong S, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, Oortwijn W. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach? COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION 2023; 21:75. [PMID: 37814257 PMCID: PMC10563323 DOI: 10.1186/s12962-023-00484-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a 'doing nothing' scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow. METHODS The present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS Sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas. CONCLUSIONS Countries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rob Baltussen
- Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
| | - Gavin Surgey
- Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands
| | - Anna Vassall
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Mojtaba Nouhi
- Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Maarten Jansen
- Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands
| | - Leon Bijlmakers
- Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands
| | - Wija Oortwijn
- Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van Leeuwen LVL, Mesman R, Berden HJJM, Jeurissen PPT. Reimbursement of care does not equal the distribution of hospital resources: an explorative case study on a missing link among Dutch hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23:1007. [PMID: 37726781 PMCID: PMC10507878 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09649-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Affordability and accessibility of hospital care are under pressure. Research on hospital care financing focuses primarily on incentives in the financial system outside the hospital. It is notable that little is known about (incentives in) internal funding in hospitals. Therefore, our study focuses on the budget allocation in hospitals: the distribution model. Based on our hypothesis that the reimbursement and distribution models in hospitals might interact, we gain knowledge about-, and insight into, the interaction of different reimbursement and distribution models used in Dutch hospitals, and how they affect the financial output of hospital care. METHODS An online survey with 22 questions was conducted among financial senior management as an expert group in 49 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS Ultimately, 38 of 49 approached experts fully completed the survey, which amounts to 78% of the hospitals we approached and 60% of all Dutch hospitals. The results on the reimbursement model indicate price * volume with adjusted prices above a maximum cap as the most common dominant contract type. On the internal distribution model, 75-80% of the experts reported incremental budgeting as the dominant budgeting method. Results on the interaction between the reimbursement and the distribution model show that both general and specific changes in contract agreements are only partially incorporated in hospital budgets. In 28 out of 31 hospitals with self-employed medical specialists, a relation is reported between the reimbursement model and the contracts with the Medical Consultant Group(s) in which the medical specialists are united. CONCLUSIONS Our results in Dutch setting indicate a limited interaction between the reimbursement model and the distribution model. This lack of congruence between both models might limit the desired effects of incentives in contractual agreements aimed at the financial output. This applies to different reimbursement and distribution models. Further research into the various interactions and incentives, as visualized in our conceptual framework, could result in evidence-based advice for achieving affordable and accessible hospital care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L V L van Leeuwen
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - R Mesman
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - H J J M Berden
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - P P T Jeurissen
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kroon D, Stadhouders NW, van Dulmen SA, Kool RB, Jeurissen PP. Why Reducing Low-Value Care Fails to Bend the Cost Curve, and Why We Should Do it Anyway. Int J Health Policy Manag 2023; 12:7803. [PMID: 37579380 PMCID: PMC10461860 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 04/16/2023] [Indexed: 08/16/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniëlle Kroon
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Siverskog J, Henriksson M. The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity. Soc Sci Med 2022; 313:115399. [PMID: 36206659 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Revised: 09/04/2022] [Accepted: 09/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
In the past two decades, most high-income countries have reduced their hospital bed capacity. This could be a sign of increased efficiency but could also reflect a degradation in quality of care. In this paper, we use repeated cross-sections on mortality and staffed hospital beds per capita in all 21 Swedish regions to estimate the potential death toll from reduced bed capacity. Between 2001 and 2019, mortality and beds decreased across all regions, but regions making smaller bed reductions experienced on average greater decreases in mortality, equivalent to one less death per three beds retained. This estimate is stable to a wide range of specifications and to adjustment for potential confounders, which supports a causal interpretation. Our results imply that by providing one more bed, Swedish health care could produce about three quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of SEK 400,000 (∼US$40,000) per QALY. These findings could be informative about the marginal productivity of health care and support the credibility of empirical work attempting to estimate the opportunity cost of funding new healthcare interventions subject to a constrained budget.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Siverskog
- Centre for Medical Technology Assessment (CMT), Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden; Centre for Health Economic Research (HEFUU), Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden.
| | - Martin Henriksson
- Centre for Medical Technology Assessment (CMT), Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|