Resource management. The finite and beyond.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Cam Donaldson.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Due to resource scarcity, every health system worldwide must decide what services to fund, and conversely, what services not to fund. In order to institute and refine a macro-level priority setting framework within a large, urban health authority in Alberta, Canada, researchers and decision makers together embarked on a participatory action research (PAR) project. The focus of this paper is the PAR process in this context, including reflections from PAR participants about the contribution of the research methodology to their own practice as health care managers and clinicians. The use of qualitative research in health economics--in this case, to refine the application of a macro-level priority setting model--is a relatively new advancement. PAR proved to be an appropriate and helpful approach to introducing a theoretically driven model of macro-level priority setting within a large, complex health organization. However, it is important that support for the change is sustained as long as necessary to embed the new practices into the organization.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a clinical and economic evaluation of outpatient weight loss strategies in overweight and obese adult U.S. women. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This study was a lifetime cost-use analysis from a societal perspective, using a first-order Monte Carlo simulation. Strategies included routine primary care and varying combinations of diet, exercise, behavior modification, and/or pharmacotherapy. Primary data were collected to assess program costs and obesity-related quality of life. Other data were obtained from clinical trials, population-based surveys, and other published literature. This was a simulated cohort of healthy 35-year-old overweight and obese women in the United States. RESULTS: For overweight and obese women, a three-component intervention of diet, exercise, and behavior modification cost 12,600 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained compared with routine care. All other strategies were either less effective and more costly or less effective and less cost-effective compared with the next best alternative. Results were most influenced by obesity-related effects on quality of life and the probabilities of weight loss maintenance. DISCUSSION: A multidisciplinary weight loss program consisting of diet, exercise, and behavior modification provides good value for money, but more research is required to confirm the impacts of such programs on quality of life and the likelihood of long-term weight loss maintenance.
OBJECTIVE: Limited resources mean that decision-makers must set priorities among competing opportunities. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is an economic approach that focuses on optimizing benefits with available resources. Accountability for reasonableness (A4R) is an ethics approach that focuses on ensuring fair priority-setting processes. PBMA and A4R have been used separately to provide decision-makers with advice about how to set priorities within limited resources. The goals of this research were to use the A4R framework to evaluate the fairness of using PBMA for priority setting and to assess how A4R might make PBMA fairer. METHODS: Qualitative case studies to describe priority setting using PBMA in the Calgary Health Region (Alberta, Canada) evaluated using A4R as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: The use of PBMA for priority setting was fairer than previous priority setting because of its emphasis on explicit rational decision-making. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by collecting data related to the decision criteria, by developing a communication plan to engage internal and external stakeholders about priority-setting, and by providing a formal mechanism to review priority-setting decisions and resolve disputes. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for combining A4R and PBMA in a more comprehensive approach to priority setting, which uses a fair priority-setting process to reach decisions aimed at achieving optimal benefits with available resources.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Bryan and Dolan have offered a critique of the use of discrete choice experiments in health economics. Their call for more open debate on "the relative strengths and limitations of the DCE method, particularly when applied in health settings" is warranted. However, their paper has only added to part of this debate in that it focuses on the application of choice experiments in the health sector but says little on the strengths and limitations of the DCE method in general. We argue that while the criticisms posed by Bryan and Dolan rightly challenge the manner in which DCEs have been applied in health economics, such criticism does not challenge the theoretical/methodological basis of DCEs per se.
The paper explores the merit of the willingness-to-pay (WTP) method as a way to elicit public preferences regarding health care priorities. The aim is to test the extent to which the implicit ranking inferred from the ordinal differences in WTP-values corresponds with respondents' explicit ranking of the same programmes. This issue of convergent validity is explored by face-to-face interviewing of population samples in six European countries-in total 1240 respondents. The most consistent result is the inconsistency of WTP and explicit ranking in all six countries. The convergent validity of WTP is low, particularly among those who did not state different WTP-values on the three programmes being considered.
Due to resource scarcity, health organizations worldwide must decide what services to fund and, conversely, what services not to fund. One approach to priority setting, which has been widely used in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, is programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). To date, such activity has primarily been based at a micro level, within programmes of care. In order to institute and refine the PBMA framework at a macro level across major service areas within a single health authority, researchers and decision-makers in Alberta embarked on a participatory action research project together. This paper identifies key issues of importance to decision-makers in a real-world priority-setting context. Themes discussed include making comparisons across disparate patient groups, dealing with political factors, using relevant forms of evidence, recognizing innovations and involving the public. The in-depth insight gained through this qualitative analysis will enable future refinement of PBMA at a macro level in the health authority under study, and should also serve to inform priority-setting activity in regionalized contexts elsewhere. In identifying aspects of priority setting that are important to decision-makers, researchers can also be better informed with respect to real-world processes.
The objective of this study was to identify key issues relevant to the development and implementation of a macro-level priority-setting framework (i.e., across broad service areas) within the Calgary Health Region. We used rigorous qualitative methods, including focus groups, meeting observations and interviews to identify views of decision-makers. Key issues relevant to macro-level priority-setting included: application of evidence, incentives, physician involvement, public involvement and application of values. Detailed insight into each of these issues was derived, including how best to handle related barriers to priority-setting in health organizations and important lessons for framework development. These lessons learned should provide insight for similar activity in other jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND: The choice of therapy for a displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture has long been a source of uncertainty in orthopaedic surgery, both in terms of the impact of the therapy on clinical outcomes and on health-care and non-health-care costs. We performed an economic evaluation, based on the results of a randomized clinical trial, to evaluate the economic implications of operative compared with nonoperative management of this fracture. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed, with use of a four-year time horizon, to determine the effect on costs and health benefits of operative compared with nonoperative management for a group of patients with displaced intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. The complication rate, arthrodesis rate, survival data, and health-outcome data were estimated prospectively from a recent randomized clinical trial. Direct health-care costs and indirect costs (the cost of time lost from work) were estimated retrospectively from the center treating the majority of the patients. RESULTS: Operative management resulted in a lower rate of subtalar arthrodesis and a shorter time off from work compared with nonoperative treatment. When indirect costs, such as the time lost from work, were included in the analysis, operative management was less costly (an average savings of Can$19,000 per patient) and more effective, thus making it the preferred strategy. The result was most sensitive to the estimates of the costs of time lost from work. When these costs were excluded, operative treatment remained more effective, but with an increased average cost of Can$2800 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Calcaneal fractures have been recognized as having relatively poor clinical outcomes and a major socioeconomic impact with regard to time lost from work and recreation. Our analysis suggests that operative management of displaced intra-articular fractures is economically attractive. However, further exploration of the impact and valuation of time lost from work and patient outcomes is required.
OBJECTIVE: A willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey measures the value of a given intervention in money terms. We examined the WTP of Canadian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for a hypothetical cure for RA under private and public scenarios. The validity of the survey was explored by studying the association between WTP and variables thought to be associated with WTP and randomly-varied variables of the survey materials. METHODS: A telephone survey was carried out in a sample of 121 patients with RA from 5 rheumatologists affiliated with the McGill University Health Centre. In advance, patients had been sent a 4-page brochure providing a comprehensive description of the disease (including photos or no photos). The hypothetical cure for RA was presented through 2 scenarios: a private insurance implying an annual premium and a public coverage requiring additional income taxes. The survey included questions related to their WTP, socioeconomic status (ability to pay), general health, opinion about the performance of the healthcare system, and their opinion about the difficulty of the survey. For elicitation of WTP, patients were randomized to one of 3 payment cards. Mailed questionnaires concerning RA health status were also completed. A series of univariate comparisons and multivariate ordered logit regressions were carried out to examine the association of WTP and patient and study variables. RESULTS: Patients were willing to pay annually significantly more for the private program (mean 1190 Canadian dollars) than for the public program (mean 502 Canadian dollars). Annual WTP was associated with age, household income, site of care (private program), private health insurance, opinion about the performance of the public healthcare system (public program), and presence of brochure photos. The payment card did not affect WTP for either program. CONCLUSION: The WTP survey was well understood and accepted by the patients with RA. Although measures of RA-specific health status (e.g., Health Assessment Questionnaire) were not found to be associated with WTP, many variables thought to be associated with WTP were found to be related in the expected directions. Since WTP for the private program was higher than that for the public program, our study design did not fully capture altruistic valuations of RA patients. Thus, our estimates represent a lower bound on patients' WTP for an RA cure.
Restenosis is a major limitation to the long-term success of percutaneous coronary intervention. Drug-eluting stents are the most recent technological advance in restenosis prevention. While they are effective, their use is associated with a significant incremental cost, and a recent economic evaluation performed by the authors suggested that their use is associated with a cost per quality-adjusted life year of $58,721. How should decision-makers react to this value, particularly given that the use of sirolimus-eluting stents appears more attractive in certain patient subgroups, such as those with complex coronary lesions? In the present paper, the authors explore an alternative method of presenting the results of their economic evaluation, rather than the usual cost per quality-adjusted life year rubric, in an attempt to assist decision-makers in deciding whether, and for whom, to fund sirolimus-eluting stents. Several issues that decision-makers and providers may wish to consider when making such funding decisions are discussed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Health organizations the world over are required to set priorities and allocate resources within the constraint of limited funding. However, decision makers may not be well equipped to make explicit rationing decisions and as such often rely on historical or political resource allocation processes. One economic approach to priority setting which has gained momentum in practice over the last three decades is program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). METHODS: This paper presents a detailed step by step guide for carrying out a priority setting process based on the PBMA framework. This guide is based on the authors' experience in using this approach primarily in the UK and Canada, but as well draws on a growing literature of PBMA studies in various countries. RESULTS: At the core of the PBMA approach is an advisory panel charged with making recommendations for resource re-allocation. The process can be supported by a range of 'hard' and 'soft' evidence, and requires that decision making criteria are defined and weighted in an explicit manner. Evaluating the process of PBMA using an ethical framework, and noting important challenges to such activity including that of organizational behavior, are shown to be important aspects of developing a comprehensive approach to priority setting in health care. CONCLUSION: Although not without challenges, international experience with PBMA over the last three decades would indicate that this approach has the potential to make substantial improvement on commonly relied upon historical and political decision making processes. In setting out a step by step guide for PBMA, as is done in this paper, implementation by decision makers should be facilitated.
When applying willingness-to-pay (WTP) in economic evaluations, there have been strong theoretical arguments for the use of ex ante insurance-based questions, which can be framed either as insurance premiums or taxation contributions. This paper suggests theoretical reasons why respondents may value a programme differently in these two different ex ante approaches, and inquires empirically into the potential existence of such differences. A split-sample interview study was undertaken in Denmark. The proportion of respondents willing to pay is higher in the community version, and the respondents use different reasons for being and not being willing to pay.
This paper compares willingness to pay (WTP) estimates generated from the dichotomous choice (DC) and payment card (PC) approaches. In a split-sample WTP experiment concerned with allocating scarce health care resources across three health care interventions, the DC approach is shown consistently to generate larger welfare estimates than the PC. Observed difference between PC and DC experiments cannot be explained by the inclusion of non-demanders or methods of statistical analysis but may be partly explained by "yea-saying". No evidence of range bias or mid-point bias was found with PC responses. Data were also collected on respondents' ordinal rankings of the three interventions and person-trade-offs (PTOs). Neither of these approaches converged with WTP. Future work must address the decision heuristics individuals employ when responding to valuation experiments.