Duncan Mortimer1. 1. Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. duncan.mortimer@buseco.monash.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remarkable progress has been made over the past 40 years in developing rational, evidence-based mechanisms for the allocation of health resources. Much of this progress has centred on mechanisms for commissioning new medical devices and pharmaceuticals. The attention of fund-managers and policy-makers is only now turning towards development of mechanisms for decommissioning, disinvesting or redeploying resources from currently funded interventions. While Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis would seem well-suited to this purpose, past applications include both successes and failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release. DISCUSSION: Drawing on recent successes/failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release via PBMA, this paper identifies four barriers/enablers to disinvestment via PBMA: (i) specification of the budget constraint, (ii) scope of the programme budget, (iii) composition and role of the advisory group, and (iv) incentives for/against contributing to a 'shift list' of options for disinvestment and resource release. A number of modifications to the PBMA process are then proposed with the aim of reorienting PBMA towards disinvestment. SUMMARY: The reoriented model is differentiated by four features: (i) hard budget constraint with budgetary pressure; (ii) programme budgets with broad scope but specific investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals with similar input requirements; (iii) advisory/working groups that include equal representation of sectional interests plus additional members with responsibility for advocating in favour of disinvestment, (iv) 'shift lists' populated and developed prior to 'wish lists' and investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals within a relatively narrow budget area. While the argument and evidence presented here suggest that the reoriented model will facilitate disinvestment and resource release, this remains an empirical question. Likewise, further research will be required to determine whether or not the re-oriented model sacrifices feasibility and acceptability to obtain its hypothesised greater emphasis on disinvestment.
BACKGROUND: Remarkable progress has been made over the past 40 years in developing rational, evidence-based mechanisms for the allocation of health resources. Much of this progress has centred on mechanisms for commissioning new medical devices and pharmaceuticals. The attention of fund-managers and policy-makers is only now turning towards development of mechanisms for decommissioning, disinvesting or redeploying resources from currently funded interventions. While Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis would seem well-suited to this purpose, past applications include both successes and failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release. DISCUSSION: Drawing on recent successes/failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release via PBMA, this paper identifies four barriers/enablers to disinvestment via PBMA: (i) specification of the budget constraint, (ii) scope of the programme budget, (iii) composition and role of the advisory group, and (iv) incentives for/against contributing to a 'shift list' of options for disinvestment and resource release. A number of modifications to the PBMA process are then proposed with the aim of reorienting PBMA towards disinvestment. SUMMARY: The reoriented model is differentiated by four features: (i) hard budget constraint with budgetary pressure; (ii) programme budgets with broad scope but specific investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals with similar input requirements; (iii) advisory/working groups that include equal representation of sectional interests plus additional members with responsibility for advocating in favour of disinvestment, (iv) 'shift lists' populated and developed prior to 'wish lists' and investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals within a relatively narrow budget area. While the argument and evidence presented here suggest that the reoriented model will facilitate disinvestment and resource release, this remains an empirical question. Likewise, further research will be required to determine whether or not the re-oriented model sacrifices feasibility and acceptability to obtain its hypothesised greater emphasis on disinvestment.
Authors: Adam G Elshaug; John R Moss; Peter Littlejohns; Jonathan Karnon; Tracy L Merlin; Janet E Hiller Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Claire Harris; Kelly Allen; Vanessa Brooke; Tim Dyer; Cara Waller; Richard King; Wayne Ramsey; Duncan Mortimer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel J Niven; Kelly J Mrklas; Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Sharon E Straus; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Lianne P Jeffs; Henry Thomas Stelfox Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Virginia Wiseman; Craig Mitton; Mary M Doyle-Waters; Tom Drake; Lesong Conteh; Anthony T Newall; Obinna Onwujekwe; Stephen Jan Journal: Health Econ Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Moriah E Ellen; Michael G Wilson; Marcela Vélez; Ruth Shach; John N Lavis; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Kaelan A Moat Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2018-06-15