IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i6d10.1007_s10198-017-0923-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Richardson

    (Monash University)

  • Angelo Iezzi

    (Monash University)

  • Aimee Maxwell

    (Monash University)

  • Gang Chen

    (Monash University)

Abstract

It has been proposed that equity may be included in the economic evaluation of health services using the ‘proportional shortfall’ (PS)—the proportion of a person’s QALY expectation that they would lose because of an illness. The present paper reports the results of a population survey designed to test whether PS helped to explain people’s preferences for health services and whether it did this better than the absolute shortfall or the equity related variables that PS seeks to replace. Survey respondents were asked to allocate 100 votes between 13 scenarios and a standard scenario. Variation in the allocation of votes was explained by health gain and different combinations of the equity variables. Differences in votes for the comparisons were significantly related to differences in PS but the relationship was weaker than between votes and the age related variables. Cases were identified where PS suggested a priority ordering of services which was strongly rejected by respondents. It is concluded that the use of PS is unlikely to improve the alignment of priorities with public preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Gang Chen, 2018. "Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 797-806, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0923-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5?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. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    2. Stolk, Elly A. & Pickee, Stefan J. & Ament, Andre H.J.A. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2005. "Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 343-355, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Chris Skedgel & Dean Regier, 2015. "Constant-Sum Paired Comparisons for Eliciting Stated Preferences: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 155-163, April.
    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. Collewet, Marion & Koster, Paul, 2023. "Preference estimation from point allocation experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    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. 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, February.
    2. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.
    3. Erik Nord, 2018. "Beyond QALYs: Multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 267-275, March.
    4. Reckers-Droog, V.T. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2018. "Looking back and moving forward: On the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 621-629.
    5. 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.
    6. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    7. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    8. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    9. Saeed Shahabi & Shahina Pardhan & Ahmad Ahmadi Teymourlouy & Dimitrios Skempes & Shabnam Shahali & Parviz Mojgani & Maryam Jalali & Kamran Bagheri Lankarani, 2021. "Prioritizing solutions to incorporate Prosthetics and Orthotics services into Iranian health benefits package: Using an analytic hierarchy process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Rogowski, Wolf H. & Schleidgen, Sebastian, 2015. "Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 147-155.
    12. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    13. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    16. Eleftherios Giovanis & Oznur Ozdamar & Sahizer Samuk, 2021. "Health status and willingness-to-pay estimates for the benefits of improved recycling rates: evidence from Great Britain," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-28, January.
    17. Roy Brouwer & Fumbi Job & Bianca Kroon & Richard Johnston, 2015. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-94, February.
    18. 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.
    19. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    20. Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon & Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon, 2014. "A"Delphi exercise"as a tool in Amazon rainforest valuation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7143, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Proportional shortfall; Fair innings; Severity; Equity-efficiency; Economic evaluation; Cost utility analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:19:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0923-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.