Search

Trade-offs abound in healthcare yet depending on where one stands relative to the stages of a pandemic, choice making may be more or less constrained. During the early stages of COVID-19 when there was much uncertainty, healthcare systems faced greater constraints and focused on the singular criterion of “flattening the curve.” As COVID-19 progressed and the first wave diminished (relatively speaking depending on the jurisdiction), more opportunities presented for making explicit choices between COVID and non-COVID patients. Then, as the second wave surged, again decision makers were more constrained even as more information and greater understanding developed. Moving out of the pandemic to recovery, choice making becomes paramount as there are no set rules to lean back into historical patterns of resource allocation. In fact, the opportunity at hand, when using explicit tools for priority setting based on economic and ethical principles, is significant.

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.

PurposeThe United States devotes a larger share of its GDP to health care and spends more on health care per capita than any other country. The sheer size of the total spending on health care, at approximately $3.5 trillion in 2017, puts significant pressure on all payers and crowds out other forms of public and private spending.Design/methodology/approachIn this brief commentary the authors suggest that, as part of the effort to deal with this pressure, the United States should look at borrowing a cost containment strategy from other countries: the use of hard caps on spending growth. The authors draw on our their experience of working with decision-makers over the last 20 years on the topic of priority setting to put forward some ideas on whether there is potential for application of trade-offs in the United States.FindingsAs hard caps force choices to be made, a necessary condition for successful implementation of this policy is the presence of an effective priority-setting framework to ensure that the right choices are made in operationalizing spending limitations. Work on this topic elsewhere can provide some insight into the use of a criteria-based framework for priority setting that purports transparency in decision-making to achieve value-based decisions.Originality/valueOther countries still have much work to do, but there is a substantial track record of using formal priority-setting approaches that could potentially inform practice in the United States. We suggest that there are key segments of the US healthcare system where the adoption of formal priority-setting frameworks to guide trade-off decisions is feasible. Piloting such activity in these contexts is the next natural step in this line of inquiry.

Background Implementing adequate strategies to assess the value of health services plays a central role in the effort to deal with the financial pressures faced by health care systems worldwide. This study aimed to understand which approaches to value assessment have been used in developed countries. Methods We conducted a rapid review and a gray literature search to identify value assessment frameworks. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. In addition, we developed an interpretive classification system to make sense of existing approaches. Results One thousand one hundred seventy-six references were identified and 38 papers were selected for full-review. Among these 38 articles, 22 distinct approaches to assess value of health care interventions were identified and classified according to four points: 1) use of single or multiple considerations to base value estimates; 2) use of disease-specific or generic criteria; 3) reliance on process-based or outcomes-based consideration; and 4) type of input and evidence considered. Conclusions The contextual nature of value assessment in health care becomes evident with the diversity of existing approaches. Despite the predominance of cases relying on the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the measure of value, this approach has not been sufficient to meet the needs of decision-makers. The use of multiple criteria has become more and more important, as well as the consideration of patient-reported measures. Considerations of costs are not always explicit and consistent. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4405-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. Methods The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. Results The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. Conclusions Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining ‘success’ and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members.

6627 Background: The rising cost of anti-cancer therapy has motivated recent efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multi-criteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to establish an explicit framework to evaluate new cancer treatments. Methods: We recruited a diverse multi-stakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the Drug Assessment Framework (DAF). Strength of evidence (SOE) modifiers deducted points for lower quality evidence. Through one-on-one meetings with stakeholders, face and content validity of the DAF were established in an iterative process. Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with the pan-Canadian oncology drug review (pCODR) funding decisions and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit score (ESMO-MCBS, version 1.1). Sensitivity analyses were performed on the final results. Results: The final validated DAF includes ten criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality-of-life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity and caregiver well-being. The first five clinical benefit criteria represent 64% of the total weight. DAF scores range from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of the supporting evidence. When the DAF was retrospectively applied to the last 60 drugs (in blinded fashion) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), the mean total DAF score was 94 (range, 18-179). Drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendation had higher DAF scores than drugs not recommended for reimbursement (103 vs. 63, t-test p = 0.0007). Funded drugs had fewer SOE points deducted than those that were not funded (median 0 vs. 24 points deducted, Wilcoxon p = 0.03). The correlation coefficient for DAF and ESMO-MCBS was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the subjective criteria either positively or negatively did not change the results. Conclusions: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed and validated. The DAF can provide a transparent and consistent method to value and prioritize cancer drugs, in order to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Facing a projected $1.4M deficit on a $35M operating budget for fiscal year 2011/2012, members of the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine developed and implemented an explicit, transparent, criteria-based priority setting process for resource reallocation. A task group that included representatives from across the Faculty of Medicine used a program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) framework, which provided an alternative to the typical public-sector approaches to addressing a budget deficit of across-the-board spending cuts and political negotiation. Key steps to the PBMA process included training staff members and department heads on priority setting and resource reallocation, establishing process guidelines to meet immediate and longer-term fiscal needs, developing a reporting structure and forming key working groups, creating assessment criteria to guide resource reallocation decisions, assessing disinvestment proposals from all departments, and providing proposal implementation recommendations to the dean. All departments were required to submit proposals for consideration. The task group approved 27 service reduction proposals and 28 efficiency gains proposals, totaling approximately $2.7M in savings across two years. During this process, the task group faced a number of challenges, including a tight timeline for development and implementation (January to April 2011), a culture that historically supported decentralized planning, at times competing interests (e.g., research versus teaching objectives), and reductions in overall health care and postsecondary education government funding. Overall, faculty and staff preferred the PBMA approach to previous practices. Other institutions should use this example to set priorities in times of fiscal constraints.

Importance Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is a major cause of childhood deafness. Most cCMV infections are not diagnosed without newborn screening, resulting in missed opportunities for directed care. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of universal and targeted newborn cCMV screening programs compared with no cCMV screening. Design, Setting, and Participants Models were constructed using rates and outcomes from prospective cohort studies of newborn cCMV screening in US postpartum care and early hearing programs. Costs of laboratory testing, treatment, and hearing loss were drawn from Medicaid data and published estimates. The benefits of cCMV screening were assumed to come from antiviral therapy for affected newborns to reduce hearing loss and from earlier identification of hearing loss with postnatal onset. Analyses were performed from July 2014 to March 2016. Interventions Models compared universal or targeted cCMV screening of newborns with a failed hearing screen, with standard care for cCMV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures The incremental costs of identifying 1 cCMV infection, identifying 1 case of cCMV-related hearing loss, and preventing 1 cochlear implant; the incremental reduction in cases of severe to profound hearing loss; and the differences in costs per infant screened by universal or targeted strategies under different assumptions about the effectiveness of antiviral treatment. Results Among all infants born in the United States, identification of 1 case of cCMV infection by universal screening was estimated to cost $2000 to $10 000; by targeted screening, $566 to $2832. The cost of identifying 1 case of hearing loss due to cCMV was as little as $27 460 by universal screening or $975 by targeted screening. Assuming a modest benefit of antiviral treatment, screening programs were estimated to reduce severe to profound hearing loss by 4.2% to 13% and result in direct costs of $10.86 per newborn screened. However, savings of up to $37.97 per newborn screened were estimated when costs related to functionality were included. Conclusions and Relevance Newborn screening for cCMV infection appears to be cost-effective under a wide range of assumptions. Universal screening offers larger net savings and the greatest opportunity to provide directed care. Targeted screening also appears to be cost-effective and requires testing for fewer newborns. These findings suggest that implementation of newborn cCMV screening programs is warranted.

BACKGROUND Anthracyclines are a class of highly effective chemotherapeutic drugs commonly used to treat cancer patients. Anthracyclines, however, are associated with the development of serious adverse reactions, including anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity (ACT). It is not possible, within current practice, to accurately individualize treatment to minimize risk. PROCEDURE Recently, genetic variants have been associated with the risk of ACT in children. Building on these findings and the related genetic test, a predictive model was developed which classifies pediatric patients by their risk of developing ACT. We assessed the value of this ACT-predictive risk classification in addressing ACT. RESULTS With current care, the estimated average lifetime cost of ACT is $8,667 per anthracycline-treated patient and approximately 7% of patients are expected to die from ACT. The projected impact of the information from the new predictive model is a 17% reduction in the risk of mortality from ACT and savings of about 6%: lives saved and lower costs. CONCLUSION The newly identified genetic variants associated with the risk of ACT provide information that allows a more reliable prediction of the risk of ACT for a given patient and can be obtained at a very moderate cost, which is expected to lead to meaningful progress in reducing harm and costs associated with ACT.

This paper has two objectives: (1) to provide an inventory of popular strategies for cost reduction or cost containment in the health services research literature and (2) to propose a coherent framework to organize this inventory. The purpose of this framework is to inform decision-makers when grappling with the opposing forces they face in choosing a cost reduction strategy. The trade-off is clear: to access progressively more possible strategies, the decision-maker must be ready to expose the population and patients to more significant changes in services provided. On one hand, more choices are preferable because each strategy attacks the problem from a different angle and being restricted to fewer “angles” increases the likelihood that a specific “well” may have dried up. On the other hand, we know that change is often viewed, a priori, negatively in health care management, so there are pressures to limit the impact on services.

Objective: The objective of this research was to provide further insights into the ability of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to help health care decision-makers in deciding where to allocate scarce resources so as to best meet their organizational objectives. Methods: We report on a case study of PBMA implementation. The main source of information was two sets of semi-structured evaluation interviews conducted with senior decision-makers after each of the first two years of PBMA implementation in Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), Canada. These interviews were analysed thematically, with initial coding based upon themes that had been identified in the previous stage of the research. Results: Many of the initial problems with PBMA implementation resolved themselves over time as participants became more familiar with the process. However, some problems needed to be addressed explicitly through changes in procedures. Establishing procedures for handling ‘must-dos’ (i.e. spending priorities, that are externally mandated) did not replace the need to define explicitly the extent of the organization's discretionary spending authority. Conclusion: Faced with claims that typically outstrip available resources, health care decision-makers need a process to guide allocation decisions. PBMA has demonstrated at VIHA an ability to handle some of the key issues associated with this challenge. Our analysis has produced lessons that should facilitate future implementation but has also shown that resource allocation criteria selection and the extent of executive discretion are likely to be ongoing challenges.

New approaches to resource allocation are providing healthcare managers with ways to meet budget pressures while maximizing benefit to patients and populations. But putting these approaches in place often involves significant organizational change to which some degree of resistance must be expected. The authors have seen seven common objections raised time and again. Here, we offer our best advice on how healthcare leaders can anticipate and respond proactively to these challenges.

Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to describe a method for priority setting that can be used to identify options for disinvestment, and is also meant to serve as a tool for re-allocation of resources to achieve better outcomes with a given pot of resources. Approach This chapter draws on findings from the application of a priority setting and resource allocation framework known as Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA). Case studies are used to illustrate key points around implementation including factors for success and guidelines for improving priority setting in practice. Findings PBMA has been applied in over 150 settings over the last 30 years. Purposes varied from focusing strictly on disinvestment to examining opportunities for re-allocation. Many organizations report continued use of the framework and decision makers typically express a desire to not revert to historical allocation or political negotiation in deciding on the funding for programs. Practical implications Practical implications of this body of work on priority setting abound in that there are significant opportunities to improve resource allocation practice including better engagement of staff, clinicians and public members, greater use of evidence in decision making and improving process transparency. Social implications As healthcare resources are limited, particularly in predominantly publicly funded health systems, prudent use of resources is critical. Actually applying the appropriate tools to ensure that funding aligns with organizational and system objectives is paramount. Originality/value Although there is a large body of literature on priority setting particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, this chapter serves to highlight key messages specifically in the context of fiscal constraint and in relation to the concept of disinvestment or service reduction.

In the last few decades, Lake Amatitlan a highland lake (surface area 15 km2, 1,188 masl) located south of Guatemala City, has been severely impacted by human activities. The western basin of the lake (Lago Oeste) receives high sediment loads and huge amounts of untreated industrial and domestic wastewater from the capital. In 2012, a bathymetric survey was conducted in Lake Amatitlan and sediment cores were retrieved to better understand the sediment input and to estimate the lake’s loss in storage capacity over time. The life span of Lake Amatitlan’s western basin, Lago Oeste, was estimated at ~114 years, from 2012, assuming constant annual sediment accumulation rates. A tephra layer in sediment cores was used as a temporal marker to assess the impact of extreme climate events on sedimentation. Our results indicate that in 2010, during the tropical cyclone Agatha, two days after the explosion of Pacaya volcano, sediment loads increased two-fold. It is likely, that future climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme climate events such as tropical storms, heavy rains, and landslides and will consequently impact and enhance sedimentation of Lake Amatitlan. Climate change impacts will be exacerbated by increasing demographic pressures and unregulated settlements in the Lake Amatitlan watershed. Therefore, immediate management actions and adaptation strategies are urgently needed to protect the sedimentation and the disappearance of Lake Amatitlan.

Background: As fiscal constraints dominate health policy discussions across Canada and globally, priority-setting exercises are becoming more common to guide the difficult choices that must be made. In this context, it becomes highly desirable to have accurate estimates of the value of specific health care interventions. Economic evaluation is a well-accepted method to estimate the value of health care interventions. However, economic evaluation has significant limitations, which have lead to an increase in the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). One key concern with MCDA is the availability of the information necessary for implementation. In the Fall 2011, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association embarked on a project aimed at providing a valuation of physiotherapy services that is both evidence-based and relevant to resource allocation decisions. The framework selected for this project was MCDA. We report on how we addressed the challenge of obtaining some of the information necessary for MCDA implementation. Methods MCDA criteria were selected and areas of physiotherapy practices were identified. The building up of the necessary information base was a three step process. First, there was a literature review for each practice area, on each criterion. The next step was to conduct interviews with experts in each of the practice areas to critique the results of the literature review and to fill in gaps where there was no or insufficient literature. Finally, the results of the individual interviews were validated by a national committee to ensure consistency across all practice areas and that a national level perspective is applied. Results Despite a lack of research evidence on many of the considerations relevant to the estimation of the value of physiotherapy services (the criteria), sufficient information was obtained to facilitate MCDA implementation at the local level. Conclusions The results of this research project serve two purposes: 1) a method to obtain information necessary to implement MCDA is described, and 2) the results in terms of information on the benefits provided by each of the twelve areas of physiotherapy practice can be used by decision-makers as a starting point in the implementation of MCDA at the local level.

Objectives. To identify and review innovations relevant to improving access, quality, efficiency and/or effectiveness in the organization and delivery of health care services in rural and remote areas. Study design. Literature review. Methods. Key bibliographic databases that index health research were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Other databases relevant to Arctic health were also accessed. Abstracts were assessed for relevancy and full articles were reviewed and categorized according to emergent themes. Results. Many innovations in delivering services to rural and remote areas were identified, particularly in the public health realm. These innovations were grouped into 4 key themes: organizational structure of health services; utilization of telehealth and ehealth; medical transportation; and public health challenges. Conclusions. Despite the challenges facing rural and remote regions, there is a distinctly positive message from this broad literature review. Evidence-based initiatives exist across a range of areas – which include operational efficiency and integration, access to care, organizational structure, public health, continuing education and workforce composition – that have the potential to positively impact health care quality and health-related outcomes. (Int J Circumpolar Health 2011; 70(5):460-472) Keywords: health service delivery, organization, northern rural and remote areas, innovation

Background Decisions regarding the allocation of available resources are a source of growing dissatisfaction for healthcare decision-makers. This dissatisfaction has led to increased interest in research on evidence-based resource allocation processes. An emerging area of interest has been the empirical analysis of the characteristics of existing and desired priority setting processes from the perspective of decision-makers. Methods We conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 18 senior managers and medical directors with the Vancouver Island Health Authority, an integrated health care provider in British Columbia responsible for a population of approximately 730,000. Interviews were transcribed and content-analyzed, and major themes and sub-themes were identified and reported. Results Respondents identified nine key features of a desirable priority setting process: inclusion of baseline assessment, use of best evidence, clarity, consistency, clear and measurable criteria, dissemination of information, fair representation, alignment with the strategic direction and evaluation of results. Existing priority setting processes were found to be lacking on most of these desired features. In addition, respondents identified and explicated several factors that influence resource allocation, including political considerations and organizational culture and capacity. Conclusion This study makes a contribution to a growing body of knowledge which provides the type of contextual evidence that is required if priority setting processes are to be used successfully by health care decision-makers.

Debate over healthcare often focuses on two key issues: quality and cost. However, because of the unique characteristics of healthcare, this relationship is not as simple as it might seem. A recent Supreme Court of Canada judgement directly addressing aspects of quality of care, combined with related government policy, provides an impetus for a review of research on quality as it affects costs of care. Our premise is that quality problems may not be the result of financing constraints but rather quality issues are a significant contributor to funding pressures. Theoretical and empirical evidence is reviewed and the implications for decision makers are discussed. A managerial focus on cost minimisation strategies makes implementing priority setting processes challenging because it calls for behaviours that typically counter professional self-interest. We suggest that a focus on quality would ultimately provide an effective strategy to contain costs, not to mention having a positive impact on patient well-being.

Objectives: The aim of the project was to develop a plan to address a forecasted deficit of approximately $4.65 million for fiscal year 2010/11 in the Vancouver Communities division of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. For disinvestment opportunities identified beyond the forecasted deficit, a commitment was made to consider options for resource re-allocation within the Vancouver Communities division. Methods: A standard approach to program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) was taken with a priority setting working committee and a broader advisory panel. An experienced, non-vested internal project manager worked closely with the two-member external research team throughout the process. Face to face evaluation interviews were held with 10 decision makers immediately following the process. Results: The recommendations of the working committee included the implementation of 44 disinvestment initiatives with an annualized value of CAD $4.9 million, as well as consideration of possible investments if the realized savings match expectations. Overall, decision makers viewed the process favorably and the primary aim of addressing the deficit gap was met. Discussion: A key challenge was the tight timeline which likely lead to less evidence informed decision making then one would hope for. Despite this, decision makers felt that better decisions were made then had the process not been in place. In the end, this project adds value in finding that PBMA can be used to cover a deficit and minimize opportunity cost through systematic application of criteria whilst ensuring process fairness through focusing on communication, transparency and decision maker engagement.