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

被引:43
作者
Mitton, C [1 ]
Patten, S [1 ]
Waldner, H [1 ]
Donaldson, C [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calgary, Ctr Hlth & Policy Studies, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
关键词
priority setting; marginal analysis; action research;
D O I
10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00549-X
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
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 macromarginal 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 in resource releases (approximate to3% 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. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1653 / 1663
页数:11
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
ANGUS D, 1995, SUSTAINABLE HLTH C 1
[2]  
Ashton T, 2000, J Health Serv Res Policy, V5, P170
[3]  
BIRCH S, 1993, CAN MED ASSOC J, V149, P607
[4]   The Oregon experiment: The role of cost-benefit analysis in the allocation of Medicaid funds [J].
Blumstein, JF .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1997, 45 (04) :545-554
[5]   A SURVIVORS GUIDE TO PROGRAM BUDGETING [J].
BRAMBLEBY, P .
HEALTH POLICY, 1995, 33 (02) :127-145
[6]  
Coast J, 1999, HEALTH ECON, V8, P345, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.3.CO
[7]  
2-H
[8]   MESSAGES FROM MID GLAMORGAN - A MULTI-PROGRAM EXPERIMENT WITH MARGINAL ANALYSIS [J].
COHEN, DR .
HEALTH POLICY, 1995, 33 (02) :147-155
[9]   NEEDS ASSESSMENT, PRIORITY SETTING, AND CONTRACTS FOR HEALTH-CARE - AN ECONOMIC-VIEW [J].
DONALDSON, C ;
MOONEY, G .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1991, 303 (6816) :1529-1530
[10]  
Drummond MF, 2015, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, V4th, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00069-X