Edward Wilson1, Jon Sussex, Christine Macleod, Richard Fordham. 1. UEA/NHS Health Economics Support Programme, Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy & Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. ed.wilson@uea.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the English National Health Service (NHS), Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning health-care services on behalf of their populations. As resources are finite, decisions are required as to which services best fulfil population needs. Evidence on effectiveness varies in quality and availability. Nevertheless, decisions still have to be made. METHODS: We report the development and pilot application of a multi-criteria prioritization mechanism in an English PCT, capable of accommodating a wide variety of evidence to rank six service developments. RESULTS: The mechanism proved valuable in assisting prioritization decisions and feedback was positive. Two community-based interventions were expected to save money in the long term and were ranked at the top of the list. Based on weighted benefit score and cost, two preventive programmes were ranked third and fourth. Finally, two National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-approved interventions were ranked fifth and sixth. Sensitivity analysis revealed overlap in benefit scores for some of the interventions, representing diversity of opinion among the scoring panel. CONCLUSION: The method appears to be a practical approach to prioritization for commissioners of health care, but the pilot also revealed interesting divergences in relative priority between nationally mandated service developments and local health-care priorities.
BACKGROUND: In the English National Health Service (NHS), Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning health-care services on behalf of their populations. As resources are finite, decisions are required as to which services best fulfil population needs. Evidence on effectiveness varies in quality and availability. Nevertheless, decisions still have to be made. METHODS: We report the development and pilot application of a multi-criteria prioritization mechanism in an English PCT, capable of accommodating a wide variety of evidence to rank six service developments. RESULTS: The mechanism proved valuable in assisting prioritization decisions and feedback was positive. Two community-based interventions were expected to save money in the long term and were ranked at the top of the list. Based on weighted benefit score and cost, two preventive programmes were ranked third and fourth. Finally, two National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-approved interventions were ranked fifth and sixth. Sensitivity analysis revealed overlap in benefit scores for some of the interventions, representing diversity of opinion among the scoring panel. CONCLUSION: The method appears to be a practical approach to prioritization for commissioners of health care, but the pilot also revealed interesting divergences in relative priority between nationally mandated service developments and local health-care priorities.
Authors: Vincent Lorant; Charlotte Geerts; Christiane Duchesnes; Jo Goedhuys; Lynn Ryssaert; Roy Remmen; William D'hoore Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Annette Plüddemann; Carl Heneghan; Matthew Thompson; Nia Roberts; Nicholas Summerton; Luan Linden-Phillips; Claire Packer; Christopher P Price Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lalla Aïda Guindo; Monika Wagner; Rob Baltussen; Donna Rindress; Janine van Til; Paul Kind; Mireille M Goetghebeur Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2012-07-18