IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/sembri/000451.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Involvement in Priority Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Gold

Abstract

International and UK experience illustrates the difficulty of involving the publica in health caare priority setting in ways that enable politicians, managers and doctors to incorporate public preferences into practical decision making.Many techniques for measuring public preferences fail to incorporate key concepts:opportunity cost. What are people prepared to give up or have less of, in order to have more of something else? The public have to be asked to make trade-offs;strength of preference. Satisifaction surveys, for example, do not reveal by how much one treatment or aspect of service is preferred to anothera managerial approach. The public have to be asked questions that mirror the practical decisions that have to be made, otherwise their responses cannot be related to the issues faced by decision makers.Stated preference methods of measuring public preferences were initially used in the UK to inform pricing and investment decisions in public transport.Their use is now more widespread, because they replace the need for ‘gut feel’ and judgement about public preferences about services where these cannot be directly observed. Up until now these methods have been used in health care only to focus on individual services, for example to measure trade-offs between waiting times for appointments and distance to travel.A sudy commissioned by East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority used stated preference methodfs to understand public preferences in priority setting, i.e. making a treatment available to one patient group at the expense of denying another treatment to another patient group.The results hace to be interpreted with care but suggest that treartment for individual patients that cost more than £100,000 were rarely supported, whilst those costing below £70,000 were usually supported. The public did not always prefere choices that maximised health gain, sometimes preferring treatments that provided simply a good quality life.Stated preference methods often involve the use of qualtitative research, to help identify the key issues of concern to the public, to pilot the types of questions to be asked, and, after the quantitative component of the study has been completed, to help the researchers understand and interpret the results.However, this assumes that preferences exist,are complete and are stable. It is likely that people’s choices are partially constructed during the process of answering questions, which requires researchers to ensure that people have time to reflect before answering questions. Qualitative research should be used to ensure that quantitative results are valid and that the underlying reasons for the trade-offs are understood.All attempts to involve the public in health care priority setting must accord the public respect. Whilst the views of the public will only ever be one of many criteria informing resource allocation, the results of research exercises involving the public must be seen to inform the decisions that are made. Stated preference methods, incorporating the effectice use of qualitative research, offer an appraoch that can provide measured preferences in a way that directly addresses the decision to be taken. This enables a direct link to be established between the views of the public and their impact on the decision making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Gold, 1999. "Public Involvement in Priority Setting," Seminar Briefing 000451, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:sembri:000451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/public-involvement-priority-setting/attachment-254-1999_public_involvement_gold/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Involvement in Priority Setting;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ohe:sembri:000451. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.