IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nim/nimawp/43-2011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who and how should participate in health care priority setting? Evidence from a Portuguese survey

Author

Abstract

This article provides highlights of the evolution of the health care rationing debate towards a more transparent and open approach involving public participation. Discretionary models that have dominated health sector decision-making are being questioned by different sectors of society. Using data from 442 college students, we explore public’s views on its involvement in health care rationing decisions. Findings suggest that although citizens wish to be consulted, they believe doctors should play the most important role on the rationing decisions. Nonetheless, the confidence in doctors is not independent of the criteria used to support their decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Anabela Botelho & Micaela M. Pinho & Paula Veiga, 2011. "Who and how should participate in health care priority setting? Evidence from a Portuguese survey," NIMA Working Papers 43, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    • Handle: RePEc:nim:nimawp:43/2011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/publications/NIMAwp43.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: none
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    2. Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul, 2007. "Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2499-2503, June.
    3. Bowling, Ann & Jacobson, Bobbie & Southgate, Lesley, 1993. "Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 851-857, October.
    4. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    5. Elias Mossialos, 1997. "Citizens' Views on Health Care Systems in the 15 Member States of The European Union," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 109-116, March.
    6. Mossialos, Elias & King, Derek, 1999. "Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 75-135, September.
    7. Lindholm, Lars & Rosen, Mans & Emmelin, Maria, 1996. "An epidemiological approach towards measuring the trade-off between equity and efficiency in health policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 205-216, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Broqvist, Mari & Garpenby, Peter, 2015. "It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 301-308.
    2. Rosen, Per, 2006. "Public dialogue on healthcare prioritisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 107-116, November.
    3. Carlota Quintal, 2009. "Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 121-136, June.
    4. Eamon O’Shea & Jennifer Stewart & Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley, 2001. "Eliciting Preferences for Resource Allocation in Health Care," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 217-238.
    5. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
    6. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    7. Lancry, Pierre-Jean & Sandier, Simone, 1999. "Rationing health care in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 23-38, December.
    8. Schokkaert, Erik & Van de Voorde, Carine, 2003. "Belgium: risk adjustment and financial responsibility in a centralised system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 5-19, July.
    9. Simone M Schneider, 2020. "Beyond endogeneity in analyses of public opinion: Evaluations of healthcare by the foreign born across 24 European countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    10. Broqvist, Mari & Sandman, Lars & Garpenby, Peter & Krevers, Barbro, 2018. "The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 630-637.
    11. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Martinussen, Pål E. & Rydland, Håvard T., 2022. "(I can't get no) satisfaction: A comparative study of healthcare recommodification in Europe, 2010-18," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    13. Angelina Lazaro & Ramon Barberan & Encarnacion Rubio, 2001. "Private and social time preferences for health and money: an empirical estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 351-356, June.
    14. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    15. Johns, Benjamin & Steinhardt, Laura & Walker, Damian G. & Peters, David H. & Bishai, David, 2013. "Horizontal equity and efficiency at primary health care facilities in rural Afghanistan: A seemingly unrelated regression approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 25-31.
    16. 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.
    17. Fattore, Giovanni & Jommi, Claudio, 1998. "The new pharmaceutical policy in Italy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 21-41, October.
    18. Rebecca Shaw & Paul Dolan & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams & Peter Smith & Roger Burrows, 2001. "Development of a questionnaire to elicit public preferences regarding health inequalities," Working Papers 040cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    19. Tenbensel, Tim, 2002. "Interpreting public input into priority-setting: the role of mediating institutions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 173-194, November.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Priorities setting; Public involvement; Explicit rationing; Health-care.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nim:nimawp:43/2011. 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: NIMA (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://nima.eeg.uminho.pt/ .

    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.