IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i11p1634-1642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can regional resource shares be based only on prevalence data? An empirical investigation of the proportionality assumption

Author

Listed:
  • Vallejo-Torres, Laura
  • Morris, Stephen
  • Carr-Hill, Roy
  • Dixon, Paul
  • Law, Malcom
  • Rice, Nigel
  • Sutton, Matthew

Abstract

The needs component of the current formulae for allocating resources for hospital services and prescribing in England is based on a utilisation approach. This assumes that expenditure on NHS activity in different geographical areas reflects relative needs and supply conditions, and that these can be disentangled by regression models to yield an estimate of relative need. These assumptions have been challenged on the grounds that the needs of some groups may be systematically 'unmet'. Critics have suggested an alternative based on variations in the prevalence of health conditions, called the 'epidemiological approach'. The epidemiological approach uses direct measures of morbidity to allocate health care resources. It divides the total national budget into disease programmes based on primary diagnosis, computes the proportion of total cases for each programme in each geographical area, and then allocates budgets to geographical areas proportional to their share of total cases. The main obstacle to the epidemiological approach has been seen as its very demanding data requirements. But it also faces methodological challenges. These centre on the assumption of proportionality which, at the area level to which resources will be allocated, requires that the average level of need for 'cases' within each disease programme is the same in every area. We illustrate the epidemiological approach, and test the proportionality assumption underpinning it, using data from the 2002-2004 rounds of the Health Survey for England. We find regional variation in disease severity for major diseases, which suggests that health care needs for some conditions vary by area. Further analysis suggests that the epidemiological approach might systematically underallocate resources to rural areas, areas with younger populations, and deprived areas. Since the proportionality assumption underpinning the epidemiological approach does not hold, its adoption would fail to take account of variations in severity. This casts some doubt on the utility of the approach for resource allocation at the present time.

Suggested Citation

  • Vallejo-Torres, Laura & Morris, Stephen & Carr-Hill, Roy & Dixon, Paul & Law, Malcom & Rice, Nigel & Sutton, Matthew, 2009. "Can regional resource shares be based only on prevalence data? An empirical investigation of the proportionality assumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1634-1642, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:11:p:1634-1642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00611-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Peter C. Smith & Nigel Rice & Roy Carr‐Hill, 2001. "Capitation funding in the public sector," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 164(2), pages 217-257.
    2. Mervyn Stone & Jane Galbraith, 2006. "How not to fund hospital and community health services in England," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 143-164, January.
    3. Hugh Gravelle & Matthew Sutton & Stephen Morris & Frank Windmeijer & Alastair Leyland & Chris Dibben & Mike Muirhead, 2003. "Modelling supply and demand influences on the use of health care: implications for deriving a needs‐based capitation formula," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 985-1004, December.
    4. Nigel Rice & Peter Smith, 1999. "Approaches to capitation and risk adjustment in health care: an international survey," Working Papers 038cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Sutton, Matthew & Carr-Hill, Roy & Gravelle, Hugh & Rice, Nigel, 1999. "Do measures of self-reported morbidity bias the estimation of the determinants of health care utilisation?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 867-878, October.
    6. Asthana, Sheena & Gibson, Alex & Moon, Graham & Dicker, John & Brigham, Philip, 2004. "The pursuit of equity in NHS resource allocation: should morbidity replace utilisation as the basis for setting health care capitations?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 539-551, February.
    7. Chernichovsky, Dov & van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M., 2003. "Risk adjustment in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-3, July.
    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. Asthana, Sheena & Gibson, Alex, 2011. "Setting health care capitations through diagnosis-based risk adjustment: A suitable model for the English NHS?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 133-139, July.
    2. Per-Åke Andersson & Daniel Bruce & Anders Walander & Inga Viberg, 2011. "Time for a new budget allocation model for hospital care in Stockholm?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 36-55, March.

    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. Alessio Petrelli & Roberta Picariello & Giuseppe Costa, 2010. "Toward a needs based mechanism for capitation purposes in Italy: the role of socioeconomic level in explaining differences in the use of health services," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 29-42, March.
    2. Asada, Yukiko & Kephart, George & Hurley, Jeremiah & Yoshida, Yoko & Smith, Andrea & Bornstein, Stephen, 2012. "The role of proximity to death in need-based approaches to health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 291-302.
    3. Fabio Pammolli & Francesco Porcelli & Francesco Vidoli & Monica Auteri & Guido Borà, 2017. "La spesa sanitaria delle Regioni in Italia - Saniregio2017," Working Papers CERM 01-2017, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    4. Jones, A.M, 2010. "Models For Health Care," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/01, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. O'Loughlin, Rosalyn & Kelly, Alan, 2004. "Equity in resource allocation in the Irish health service: A policy Delphi study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 271-280, March.
    6. Laura Vallejo-Torres & Stephen Morris, 2011. "Factors associated with the use of primary care services: the role of practice nurses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 373-381, August.
    7. Constantinou, Panayotis & Tuppin, Philippe & Gastaldi-Ménager, Christelle & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2022. "Defining a risk-adjustment formula for the introduction of population-based payments for primary care in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 915-924.
    8. Monica Oliveira, 2004. "Modelling demand and supply influences on utilization: A flow demand model to predict hospital utilization at the small area level," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(20), pages 2237-2251.
    9. van Noort, Olivier & Schotanus, Fredo & van de Klundert, Joris & Telgen, Jan, 2018. "Explaining regional variation in home care use by demand and supply variables," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 140-146.
    10. Robert Elliott & Ada Ma & Matt Sutton & Diane Skatun & Nigel Rice & Stephen Morris & Alex McConnachie, 2010. "The role of the staff MFF in distributing NHS funding: taking account of differences in local labour market conditions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 532-548, May.
    11. Somi Shin, 2021. "Healthcare provider response to payment system reform: evidence from New Zealand," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(11), pages 1-29, November.
    12. Asthana, Sheena & Gibson, Alex, 2011. "Setting health care capitations through diagnosis-based risk adjustment: A suitable model for the English NHS?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 133-139, July.
    13. Darius Erlangga & Shehzad Ali & Karen Bloor, 2019. "The impact of public health insurance on healthcare utilisation in Indonesia: evidence from panel data," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(4), pages 603-613, May.
    14. Tavares, Lara Patrício & Zantomio, Francesca, 2017. "Inequity in healthcare use among older people after 2008: The case of southern European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1063-1071.
    15. Stephen Martin & Nigel Rice & Peter C Smith, 2007. "The Link Between Health Care Spending and Health Outcomes: Evidence from English Programme Budgeting Data," Working Papers 024cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Mervyn Stone, 2015. "New development: The remarkable insignificance of NHS England's CCG funding formula," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 311-314, July.
    17. William Lim & Gaurav Khemka & David Pitt & Bridget Browne, 2019. "A method for calculating the implied no-recovery three-state transition matrix using observable population mortality incidence and disability prevalence rates among the elderly," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-282, September.
    18. Adam Oliver, 2005. "The English National Health Service: 1979‐2005," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 75-99, September.
    19. Peter McHenry & Jennifer Mellor, 2018. "Medicare hospital payment adjustments and nursing wages," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 169-196, June.
    20. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.

    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:69:y:2009:i:11:p:1634-1642. 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.