Priority setting of public spending in developing countries: Do not try to do everything for everybody

Baltussen, Rob

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.10.006

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In low-resource countries the national budget devoted to health systems is extremely low and as a consequence the public health service provision can be very weak [63]. This has led to the treatment options for patients with all forms of cancer including CRC in SSA being severely limited in comparison to patients in the Western world.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the incidence of colorectal cancer in Sub–Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis

Graham¹,

Rudan²,

Grant³

et al. 2012

J Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the incidence of colorectal cancer in Sub–Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis

Graham¹,

Rudan²,

Grant³

et al. 2012

J Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is commonly used in environmental economics [17–19] and transportation [20–22] for prioritisation decisions using public preferences. Health economists have begun to see the benefit of the approach for helping answer a wide range of policy questions [13, 23], including priority setting frameworks [2, 10, 24–27]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In systems where the number of innovations that can be implemented outstrips scarce resources, prioritisation surrounding which health service innovations receive resources is inevitable [2, 3]. Alongside the use of economic criteria (e.g., cost-effectiveness, cost-utility), other factors, such as ease of implementation, severity of disease, and political acceptability [4] are also used in the prioritisation of health service innovations, often implicitly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment

Erdem

Thompson

2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrioritising scarce resources for investment in innovation by publically funded health systems is unavoidable. Many healthcare systems wish to foster transparency and accountability in the decisions they make by incorporating the public in decision-making processes. This paper presents a unique conceptual approach exploring the public’s preferences for health service innovations by viewing healthcare innovations as ‘bundles’ of characteristics. This decompositional approach allows policy-makers to compare numerous competing health service innovations without repeatedly administering surveys for specific innovation choices.MethodsA Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was used to elicit preferences. Individuals chose from presented innovation options that they believe the UK National Health Service (NHS) should invest the most in. Innovations differed according to: (i) target population; (ii) target age; (iii) implementation time; (iv) uncertainty associated with their likely effects; (v) potential health benefits; and, (vi) cost to a taxpayer. This approach fosters multidimensional decision-making, rather than imposing a single decision criterion (e.g., cost, target age) in prioritisation. Choice data was then analysed using scale-adjusted Latent Class models to investigate variability in preferences and scale and valuations amongst respondents.ResultsThree latent classes with considerable heterogeneity in the preferences were present. Each latent class is composed of two consumer subgroups varying in the level of certainty in their choices. All groups preferred scientifically proven innovations, those with potential health benefits that cost less. There were, however, some important differences in their preferences for innovation investment choices: Class-1 (54%) prefers innovations benefitting adults and young people and does not prefer innovations targeting people with ‘drug addiction’ and ‘obesity’. Class- 2 (34%) prefers innovations targeting ‘cancer’ patients only and has negative preferences for innovations targeting elderly, and Class-3 (12%) prefers spending on elderly and cancer patients the most.ConclusionsDCE can help policy-makers incorporate public preferences for health service innovation investment choices into decision making. The findings provide useful information on the public’s valuation and acceptability of potential health service innovations. Such information can be used to guide innovation prioritisation decisions by comparing competing innovation options. The approach in this paper makes, these often implicit and opaque decisions, more transparent and explicit.

show abstract

“…La utilización de la evaluación económica como evidencia para la toma de decisiones sobre las prioridades en materia de salud en nuestro país es tema del debate actual en un creciente cúmulo de literatura. [34][35][36][37][38] Las implicaciones de política global más relevantes derivadas de la definición de prioridades en México pueden ser resumidas de la siguiente manera:…”

Section: Lecciones Globalesunclassified

Definición de prioridades para las intervenciones de salud en el Sistema de Protección Social en Salud de México

González-Pier¹,

Gutiérrez-Delgado²,

Stevens³

et al. 2007

Salud pública Méx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Priority setting of public spending in developing countries: Do not try to do everything for everybody

Cited by 33 publications

References 16 publications

Estimating the incidence of colorectal cancer in Sub–Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis

Estimating the incidence of colorectal cancer in Sub–Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis

Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment

Definición de prioridades para las intervenciones de salud en el Sistema de Protección Social en Salud de México

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About