Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems

BACKGROUND

There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework.

METHODS

To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views.

RESULTS

The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.

METHODS

An online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).

RESULTS

We found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due to growing expenditures, health systems have been pushed to improve decision-making practices on resource allocation. This study aimed to identify which practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) have been used in healthcare systems of high-income countries.

METHODS

A scoping literature review (2007-2019) was conducted to map empirical PSRA activities. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. That was complemented with a gray literature and horizontal scanning. A narrative synthesis was carried out to make sense of the existing literature and current state of PSRA practices in healthcare.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred eighty five references were found in the peer-reviewed literature and 25 papers were selected for full-review. We identified three major types of decision-making framework in PSRA: 1) Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA); 2) Health Technology Assessment (HTA); and 3) Multiple-criteria value assessment. Our narrative synthesis indicates these formal frameworks of priority setting and resource allocation have been mostly implemented in episodic exercises with poor follow-up and evaluation. There seems to be growing interest for explicit robust rationales and ample stakeholder involvement, but that has not been the norm in the process of allocating resources within healthcare systems of high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

No single dominate framework for PSRA appeared as the preferred approach across jurisdictions, but common elements exist both in terms of process and structure. Decision-makers worldwide can draw on our work in designing and implementing PSRA processes in their contexts.

Applying priority-setting frameworks: A review of public and vulnerable populations' participation in health-system priority setting

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000-2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks FINDINGS: The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature on systematic approaches to healthcare priority setting from various countries and different levels of decision making. This paper synthesizes the current literature in order to assess the extent to which program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), burden of disease & cost-effectiveness analysis (BOD/CEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and accountability for reasonableness (A4R), are reported to have been institutionalized and influenced policy making and practice.

METHODS

We searched for English language publications on health care priority setting approaches (2000-2017). Our sources of literature included PubMed and Ovid databases (including Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO, EconLit).

FINDINGS

Of the four approaches PBMA and A4R were commonly applied in high income countries while BOD/CEA was exclusively applied in low income countries. PBMA and BOD/CEA were most commonly reported to have influenced policy making. The explanations for limited adoption of an approach were related to its complexity, poor policy maker understanding and resource requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

While systematic approaches have the potential to improve healthcare priority setting; most have not been adopted in routine policy making. The identified barriers call for sustained knowledge exchange between researchers and policy-makers and development of practical guidelines to ensure that these frameworks are more accessible, applicable and sustainable in informing policy making.

Fit for purpose? Introducing a rational priority setting approach into a community care setting

Purpose - Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach - A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability. Findings - Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness. Practical implications - These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA's approach. Originality/value - These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

Healthcare resource allocation decisions affecting uninsured services

Purpose Using the example of community access programs (CAPs), the purpose of this paper is to describe resource allocation and policy decisions related to providing health services for the uninsured in the USA and the organizational values affecting these decisions. Design/methodology/approach The study used comparative case study methodology at two geographically diverse sites. Researchers collected data from program documents, meeting observations, and interviews with program stakeholders. Findings Five resource allocation or policy decisions relevant to providing healthcare services were described at each site across three categories: designing the health plan, reacting to funding changes, and revising policies. Organizational values of access to care and stewardship most frequently affected resource allocation and policy decisions, while economic and political pressures affect the relative prioritization of values. Research limitations/implications Small sample size, the potential for social desirability or recall bias, and the exclusion of provider, member or community perspectives beyond those represented among participating board members. Practical implications Program directors or researchers can use this study to assess the extent to which resource allocation and policy decisions align with organizational values and mission statements. Social implications The description of how healthcare decisions are actually made can be matched with literature that describes how healthcare resource decisions ought to be made, in order to provide a normative grounding for future decisions. Originality/value This study addresses a gap in literature regarding how CAPs actually make resource allocation decisions that affect access to healthcare services.

Priority Setting Meets Multiple Streams: A Match to Be Further Examined? Comment on "Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory

With demand for health services continuing to grow as populations age and new technologies emerge to meet health needs, healthcare policy-makers are under constant pressure to set priorities, ie, to make choices about the health services that can and cannot be funded within available resources. In a recent paper, Smith et al apply an influential policy studies framework - Kingdon's multiple streams approach (MSA) - to explore the factors that explain why one health service delivery organization adopted a formal priority setting framework (in the form of programme budgeting and marginal analysis [PBMA]) to assist it in making priority setting decisions. MSA is a theory of agenda-setting, ie, how it is that different issues do or do not reach a decision-making point. In this paper, I reflect on the use of the MSA framework to explore priority setting processes and how the framework might be applied to similar cases in future.

Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory

BACKGROUND

In this article, we analyze one case instance of how proposals for change to the priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes at a Canadian healthcare institution reached the decision agenda of the organization's senior leadership. We adopt key concepts from an established policy studies framework - Kingdon's multiple streams theory - to inform our analysis.

METHODS

Twenty-six individual interviews were conducted at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada. Participants were asked to reflect upon the reasons leading up to the implementation of a formal priority setting process - Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) - in the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Responses were analyzed qualitatively using Kingdon's model as a template.

RESULTS

The introduction of PBMA can be understood as the opening of a policy window. A problem stream - defined as lack of broad engagement and information sharing across service lines in past practice - converged with a known policy solution, PBMA, which addressed the identified problems and was perceived as easy to use and with an evidence-base from past applications across Canada and elsewhere. Conditions in the political realm allowed for this intervention to proceed, but also constrained its potential outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Understanding in a theoretically-informed way how change occurs in healthcare management practices can provide useful lessons to researchers and decision-makers whose aim is to help health systems achieve the most effective use of available financial resources.

'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Health care decision making requires making resource allocation decisions among programs, services, and technologies that all compete for a finite resource pool. Methods of priority setting that use explicitly defined criteria can aid health care decision makers in arriving at funding decisions in a transparent and systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature and examine the use of criteria-based methods in ‘real-world’ health care allocation decisions.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to find examples of ‘real-world’ priority setting exercises that used explicit criteria to guide decision-making.

Results

We found thirty-three examples in the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using a variety of methods and criteria. Program effectiveness, equity, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and the number of beneficiaries emerged as the most frequently-used decision criteria. The relative importance of criteria in the ‘real-world’ trials differed from the frequency in preference elicitation exercises. Neither the decision-making method used, nor the relative economic strength of the country in which the exercise took place, appeared to have a strong effect on the type of criteria chosen.

Conclusions

Health care decisions are made based on criteria related both to the health need of the population and the organizational context of the decision. Following issues related to effectiveness and affordability, ethical issues such as equity and accessibility are commonly identified as important criteria in health care resource allocation decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization

Techniques to manage scarce healthcare resources continue to evolve in response to changing, growing and competing demands. Yet there is no standard definition in the priority setting literature of what might constitute the desired impact or success of resource management activities. In this 2006-09 study, using action research methodology, we determined the impact of implementing a formal priority setting model, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), in a Canadian health authority. Qualitative data were collected through post year-1 (n = 12) and year-2 (n = 9) participant interviews, meeting observation and document review. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparison technique to identify major themes. Impact can be defined as effects at three levels: system, group, and individual. System-level impact can be seen in the actual selection of priorities and resource re-allocation. In this case, participants prioritized a list of $760,000 worth of investment proposals and $38,000 of disinvestment proposals; however, there was no clear evidence as to whether financial resources were reallocated as a result. Group and individual impacts, less frequently reported in the literature, included changes in priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. PBMA impacts at these three levels were found to be interrelated. This work argues in favor of attempts to expand the definition of priority setting success by including both desired system-level outcomes like resource re-allocation and individual or group level impacts like changes to priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. These latter impacts are worth pursuing as they appear to be intrinsic to successful system-wide priority setting. A broader definition of PBMA impact may also suggest conceptualizing PBMA as both a priority setting approach and as a tool to develop individual and group priority setting knowledge and practice. These results should be of interest to researchers and decision makers using or considering a formal priority setting approach to manage scarce healthcare resources.

Changing priority setting practice: the role of implementation in practice change

BACKGROUND

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers in choosing among resource demands. This paper describes and evaluates the process of implementing PBMA in a Canadian regional health authority, and draws out key lessons learned from this experience.

METHODS

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured participant interviews (twelve post year-1; nine post year-2), meeting attendance, and document review. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparison technique. Other data were analyzed to evaluate PBMA implementation.

RESULTS

Desire for more clarity and for PBMA adaptations emerged as overarching themes. Participants desired greater clarity of their roles and how PBMA should be used to achieve PBMA's potential benefits. They argued that each PBMA stage should be useful independent of the others so that implementation could be adapted. To help improve clarity and ensure that resources were available to support PBMA, participants requested an organizational readiness and capacity assessment.

CONCLUSION

We suggest tactics by which PBMA may be more closely aligned with real-world priority setting practice. Our results also contribute to the literature on PBMA use in various healthcare settings. Highlighting implementation issues and potential responses to these should be of interest to decision makers implementing PBMA and other evidence-informed practices.

Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: lessons learned, available options and suggested steps

Setting priority for health programming and budget allocation is an important issue, but there is little consensus on related processes. It is particularly relevant in low resource settings and at province- and district- or "meso-level", where contextual influences may be greater, information scarce and capacity lower. Although recent changes in disease epidemiology and health financing suggest even greater need to allocate resources effectively, the literature is relatively silent on evidence-based priority-setting in low and middle income countries (LMICs). We conducted a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on health resource priority-setting in LMICs, focussing on meso-level and the evidence-based priority-setting processes (PSPs) piloted or suggested there. Our objective was to assess PSPs according to whether they have influenced resource allocation and impacted the outcome indicators prioritised. An exhaustive search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature published in the last decade yielded 57 background articles and 75 reports related to priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs. Although proponents of certain PSPs still advocate their use, other experts instead suggest broader elements to guide priority-setting. We conclude that currently no process can be confidently recommended for such settings. We also assessed the common reasons for failure at all levels of priority-setting and concluded further that local authorities should additionally consider contextual and systems limitations likely to prevent a satisfactory process and outcomes, particularly at meso-level. Recent literature proposes a list of related attributes and warning signs, and facilitated our preparation of a simple decision-tree or roadmap to help determine whether or not health systems issues should be improved in parallel to support for needed priority-setting; what elements of the PSP need improving; monitoring, and evaluation. Health priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs can involve common processes, but will often require additional attention to local health systems.

Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation is a key challenge for healthcare decision makers. While several case studies of organizational practice exist, there have been few large-scale cross-organization comparisons.

METHODS

Between January and April 2011, we conducted an on-line survey of senior decision makers within regional health authorities (and closely equivalent organizations) across all Canadian provinces and territories. We received returns from 92 individual managers, from 60 out of 89 organizations in total. The survey inquired about structures, process features, and behaviours related to organization-wide resource allocation decisions. We focus here on three main aspects: type of process, perceived fairness, and overall rating.

RESULTS

About one-half of respondents indicated that their organization used a formal process for resource allocation, while the others reported that political or historical factors were predominant. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents self-reported that their resource allocation process was fair and just over one-half assessed their process as 'good' or 'very good'. This paper explores these findings in greater detail and assesses them in context of the larger literature.

CONCLUSION

Data from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada's health system leadership teams.

Prioritizing information for quality improvement using resident assessment instrument data: experiences in one canadian province

PURPOSE

To elicit priority rankings of indicators of quality of care among providers and decision-makers in continuing care in Alberta, Canada.

METHODS

We used modified nominal group technique to elicit priorities and criteria for prioritization among the quality indicators and resident/client assessment protocols developed by the interRAI consortium for use in long-term care and home care.

RESULTS

The top-ranked items from the long-term care assessment data were pressure ulcers, pain and incontinence. The top-ranked items from the home care data were pain, falls and proportion of clients at high risk for residential placement. Participants considered a variety of issues in deciding how to rank the indicators.

IMPLICATIONS

This work reflects the beginning of a process to better understand how providers and policy makers can work together to assess priorities for quality improvement within continuing care.

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.