IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v98y2013icp162-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: Reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust

Author

Listed:
  • Goodwin, Elizabeth
  • Frew, Emma J.

Abstract

In England from 2002 to 2013, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) were responsible for commissioning healthcare for their local populations. The NHS has recently undergone rapid organisational change whereby clinicians have assumed responsibility for local commissioning decisions. This change in commissioning arrangements alongside the current financial pressures facing the NHS provides an impetus for considering the use of technical prioritisation methods to enable the identification of savings without having a detrimental effect on the health of the population. This paper reports on the design and implementation of a technical prioritisation method termed PBMA applied within NHS Plymouth, an English PCT responsible for commissioning services for a population of approximately 270,000. We evaluated the effectiveness of the process, the extent to which it was appropriate for local healthcare commissioning and whether it identified budget savings. Using qualitative research methodology, we found the process produced clear strategic and operational priorities for 2010/11, providing staff with focus and structure, and delivered a substantial planned reduction in hospital activity levels. Participants expressed satisfaction with the process. NHS Plymouth adhered to the PBMA process, although concerns were raised about the evidence for some priorities, decibel rationing, and a lack of robust challenge at priority-setting meetings. Further work is required to enhance participants' understanding of marginal analysis. Participants highlighted several external benefits, particularly in terms of cultural change, and felt the process should encompass the whole local health and social care community. This evaluation indicates that the prioritisation method was effective in producing priorities for NHS Plymouth, and that PBMA provides an appropriate method for allocating resources at a local level. In order for PBMA to identify savings, cultural and structural barriers to disinvestment must be addressed. These findings will interest other healthcare commissioners in developing their own approaches to priority-setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodwin, Elizabeth & Frew, Emma J., 2013. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: Reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 162-168.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:162-168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005261
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibson, Jennifer L. & Martin, Douglas K. & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2355-2362, December.
    2. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    3. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: A qualitative investigation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 261-270, March.
    4. Patten, San & Mitton, Craig & Donaldson, Cam, 2006. "Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1121-1134, September.
    5. Mitton, Craig & Patten, San & Waldner, Howard & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1653-1663, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    2. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    3. Brayan V. Seixas & François Dionne & Craig Mitton, 2021. "Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    5. Hill, Sarah R. & Vale, Luke & Hunter, David & Henderson, Emily & Oluboyede, Yemi, 2017. "Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1249-1262.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    2. Hipgrave, David B. & Alderman, Katarzyna Bolsewicz & Anderson, Ian & Soto, Eliana Jimenez, 2014. "Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 190-200.
    3. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    4. Waldau, Susanne, 2015. "Bottom-up priority setting revised. A second evaluation of an institutional intervention in a Swedish health care organisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(9), pages 1226-1236.
    5. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    6. Stuart J. Peacock & Craig Mitton, 2012. "Priority Setting Methods in Health Services," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 53, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    8. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    9. Dale, Elina & Peacocke, Elizabeth F. & Movik, Espen & Voorhoeve, Alex & Ottersen, Trygve & Kurowski, Christoph & Evans, David B. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Gopinathan, Unni, 2023. "Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119799, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole F. & Martin, Douglas K., 2009. "Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 766-773, February.
    11. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    12. Pratt, Bridget & Merritt, Maria & Hyder, Adnan A., 2016. "Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 215-224.
    13. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    14. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    15. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    16. Nugus, Peter & Greenfield, David & Travaglia, Joanne & Braithwaite, Jeffrey, 2012. "The politics of action research: “If you don't like the way things are going, get off the bus”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1946-1953.
    17. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-9.
    18. Malcolm Oswald, 2015. "In a democracy, what should a healthcare system do? A dilemma for public policymakers," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 23-52, February.
    19. Ssengooba, Freddie & McPake, Barbara & Palmer, Natasha, 2012. "Why performance-based contracting failed in Uganda – An “open-box” evaluation of a complex health system intervention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 377-383.
    20. Grundy, Quinn, 2016. "“Whether something cool is good enough”: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses' expertise in hospital purchasing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 82-91.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:162-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.