IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v14y2013i1p107-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall

Author

Listed:
  • E. Wetering

    ()

  • E. Stolk
  • N. Exel
  • W. Brouwer

Abstract

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to inform decisions regarding the allocation of scarce health care resources. To systematically incorporate societal preferences into these evaluations, quality-adjusted life year gains could be weighted according to some equity principle, the most suitable of which is a matter of frequent debate. While many countries still struggle with equity concerns for priority setting in health care, the Netherlands has reached a broad consensus to use the concept of proportional shortfall. Our study evaluates the concept and its support in the Dutch health care context. We discuss arguments in the Netherlands for using proportional shortfall and difficulties in transitioning from principle to practice. In doing so, we address universal issues leading to a systematic consideration of equity concerns for priority setting in health care. The article thus has relevance to all countries struggling with the formalization of equity concerns for priority setting. Copyright The Author(s) 2013

Suggested Citation

  • E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:14:y:2013:i:1:p:107-115
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0346-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-011-0346-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    2. Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.
    3. Magnus Johannesson, 2001. "Should we aggregate relative or absolute changes in QALYs?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 573-577.
    4. Wagstaff, Adam, 1991. "QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 21-41, May.
    5. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the 'Fair Innings' Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1999. "Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 681-708, December.
    7. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    8. Nord, Erik, 2005. "Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 257-263, January.
    9. J. Schreyögg & T. Stargardt & M. Velasco-Garrido & R. Busse, 2005. "Defining the “Health Benefit Basket” in nine European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 2-10, November.
    10. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452.
    11. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    12. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard, 2002. "Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 827-843, September.
    13. Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Louis Niessen & Maarten Postma & Frans Rutten, 2007. "Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 307-317.
    14. Sen, Amartya, 1995. "Inequality Reexamined," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198289289.
    15. Dolan, Paul & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2001. "Equity in health: the importance of different health streams," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 823-834, September.
    16. McKie, John & Richardson, Jeff, 2003. "The Rule of Rescue," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 2407-2419, June.
    17. Williams, Alan & Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Equity in health," Handbook of Health Economics,in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 35, pages 1863-1910 Elsevier.
    18. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39.
    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. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    2. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    3. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    4. Ottersen, Trygve & Førde, Reidun & Kakad, Meetali & Kjellevold, Alice & Melberg, Hans Olav & Moen, Atle & Ringard, Ånen & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2016. "A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 246-251.
    5. E. Wetering & N. Exel & J. Rose & R. Hoefman & W. Brouwer, 2016. "Are some QALYs more equal than others?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, March.
    6. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    7. Herlitz, Anders & Horan, David, 2016. "Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 96-102.
    8. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39.
    9. World Bank, 2015. "Bulgaria Health Financing," World Bank Other Operational Studies 22964, The World Bank.
    10. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    11. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    12. Erik Nord & Rune Johansen, 2015. "Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 313-328, April.
    13. Nord, Erik, 2012. "Measuring concerns for severity: Re-examination of a health scale with purported equal interval properties," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 312-316.
    14. repec:eee:socmed:v:181:y:2017:i:c:p:158-167 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Proportional shortfall; Priority setting; Equity; Social value; Resource allocation; I10; I18;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public 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:spr:eujhec:v:14:y:2013:i:1:p:107-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.