OBJECTIVE: This case study describes the priority-setting process undertaken by health care providers in the Municipal District of Taber, Alta., to improve and integrate chronic disease services within a fixed budget. METHODS: Providers first reviewed the current chronic disease management system, then considered alternatives based on program priorities and costs and benefits of potential changes. RESULTS: Despite reaching consensus that a chronic disease clinic was the top priority for funding, providers were unable to redesign services accordingly. Redesign efforts were hampered by the groups' difficulty in identifying services that should receive fewer resources in order to fund priority areas, inexperience with priority-setting frameworks, group composition, the belief that many programs were already at "bare bone" funding levels, and perceptions of limited budget control. In the end, recommendations were made to use attrition to release resources, establish multi-disciplinary teams and group visits, where appropriate, and relocate providers to a centralized location. Upon review of study outcomes, Taber providers were granted more decision-making authority. CONCLUSION: Overall, the use of a systematic priority-setting process, culminating in recommendations for action, has moved Taber providers closer to an integrated model of service delivery. It is recommended that formal priority-setting frameworks continue to be used in Taber for primary care renewal or at any level where consideration of existing evidence and projected costs is required.
OBJECTIVE: This case study describes the priority-setting process undertaken by health care providers in the Municipal District of Taber, Alta., to improve and integrate chronic disease services within a fixed budget. METHODS: Providers first reviewed the current chronic disease management system, then considered alternatives based on program priorities and costs and benefits of potential changes. RESULTS: Despite reaching consensus that a chronic disease clinic was the top priority for funding, providers were unable to redesign services accordingly. Redesign efforts were hampered by the groups' difficulty in identifying services that should receive fewer resources in order to fund priority areas, inexperience with priority-setting frameworks, group composition, the belief that many programs were already at "bare bone" funding levels, and perceptions of limited budget control. In the end, recommendations were made to use attrition to release resources, establish multi-disciplinary teams and group visits, where appropriate, and relocate providers to a centralized location. Upon review of study outcomes, Taber providers were granted more decision-making authority. CONCLUSION: Overall, the use of a systematic priority-setting process, culminating in recommendations for action, has moved Taber providers closer to an integrated model of service delivery. It is recommended that formal priority-setting frameworks continue to be used in Taber for primary care renewal or at any level where consideration of existing evidence and projected costs is required.