IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v11y2021i1d10.1186_s13561-020-00300-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Brayan V. Seixas

    (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA))

  • François Dionne

    (Prioritize Consulting Inc.)

  • Craig Mitton

    (Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation
    University of British Columbia (UBC))

Abstract

Background Due to growing expenditures, health systems have been pushed to improve decision-making practices on resource allocation. This study aimed to identify which practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) have been used in healthcare systems of high-income countries. Methods A scoping literature review (2007–2019) was conducted to map empirical PSRA activities. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. That was complemented with a gray literature and horizontal scanning. A narrative synthesis was carried out to make sense of the existing literature and current state of PSRA practices in healthcare. Results One thousand five hundred eighty five references were found in the peer-reviewed literature and 25 papers were selected for full-review. We identified three major types of decision-making framework in PSRA: 1) Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA); 2) Health Technology Assessment (HTA); and 3) Multiple-criteria value assessment. Our narrative synthesis indicates these formal frameworks of priority setting and resource allocation have been mostly implemented in episodic exercises with poor follow-up and evaluation. There seems to be growing interest for explicit robust rationales and ample stakeholder involvement, but that has not been the norm in the process of allocating resources within healthcare systems of high-income countries. Conclusions No single dominate framework for PSRA appeared as the preferred approach across jurisdictions, but common elements exist both in terms of process and structure. Decision-makers worldwide can draw on our work in designing and implementing PSRA processes in their contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00300-0
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00300-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-00300-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-020-00300-0?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Gallego, Gisselle & Taylor, Susan Joyce & Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth, 2007. "Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 58-66, November.
    3. Fadi Alkaraan, 2018. "Public financial management reform: an ongoing journey towards good governance," Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 16(4), pages 585-609, December.
    4. Peacock, Stuart J. & Richardson, Jeff R.J. & Carter, Rob & Edwards, Diana, 2007. "Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 897-910, February.
    5. Daniels, Norman & Sabin, James E., 2002. "Setting Limits Fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195149364.
    6. Haas, Marion & Viney, Rosalie & Kristensen, Elizabeth & Pain, Charles & Foulds, Kim, 2001. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis to assist population based strategic planning for coronary heart disease," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 173-186, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 8th March 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-03-08 12:00:01

    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. 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. 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. Askildsen, Jan Erik & Holmås, Tor Helge & Kaarboe, Oddvar, 2010. "Prioritization and patients' rights: Analysing the effect of a reform in the Norwegian hospital sector," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 199-208, January.
    4. Sofaer, Neema & Kapiriri, Lydia & Atuyambe, Lynn M. & Otolok-Tanga, Erasmus & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair?: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 33-42, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Jenny von Platten & Karl de Fine Licht & Mikael Mangold & Kristina Mjörnell, 2021. "Renovating on Unequal Premises: A Normative Framework for a Just Renovation Wave in Swedish Multifamily Housing," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, September.
    7. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    8. M. Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee & Grace Yu, 2011. "Consumer Sovereignty in Healthcare: Fact or Fiction?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 459-474, July.
    9. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Daar, Abdallah S. & Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla & Martin, Douglas K., 2011. "Priority setting for orphan drugs: An international comparison," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 25-34, April.
    10. Adele Diederich & Jeannette Winkelhage & Norman Wirsik, 2011. "Age as a Criterion for Setting Priorities in Health Care? A Survey of the German Public View," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    11. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla & Daar, Abdallah S. & Martin, Douglas K., 2012. "Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: An international perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 226-235.
    12. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    13. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    14. Smith, Neale & Mitton, Craig & Hall, William & Bryan, Stirling & Donaldson, Cam & Peacock, Stuart & Gibson, Jennifer L. & Urquhart, Bonnie, 2016. "High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 185-192.
    15. Reeleder, David & Goel, Vivek & Singer, Peter A. & Martin, Douglas K., 2006. "Leadership and priority setting: The perspective of hospital CEOs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 24-34, November.
    16. Russell, Jill & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2012. "Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2463-2471.
    17. Li-cheng Chang, 2012. "Cost-effectiveness and fairness in health care: NICE appraisals," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 343-348, September.
    18. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    19. Yanick Farmer, 2015. "Using vNM expected utility theory to facilitate the decision-making in social ethics," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(10), pages 1307-1319, November.
    20. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.

    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:hecrev:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00300-0. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.