Margreet Franken1, Xander Koolman. 1. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: franken@bmg.eur.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve previous approaches to health system goals valuation. METHODS: We reviewed literature on health system performance and previous comparative performance assessments, and combined this with literature on process utility to create a theoretical foundation for health system goals. We used a discrete choice experiment to elicit goal weights. To obtain social justice weights respondents were placed behind a 'veil of ignorance'. To ensure that respondents understood their task, we instructed them in a classroom setting. RESULTS: We identified five health system goals. All five goals significantly affected choice behavior. An equitable distribution of health obtained the highest weight (0.34), followed by average level of health (0.29) and financial fairness (0.24). Both process outcomes (utility derived from the process and its distribution) received much lower weights (0.07 and 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our framework adds to that of the World Health Organization. We demonstrated the feasibility of measuring societal valuation of health system goals with a multi-attribute technique based on trade-offs. Our weights placed much greater emphasis on health and health inequality than on process outcomes. Our study improves the methodology of international health system performance comparison and thereby enhances global evidence-based health policy information.
OBJECTIVE: To improve previous approaches to health system goals valuation. METHODS: We reviewed literature on health system performance and previous comparative performance assessments, and combined this with literature on process utility to create a theoretical foundation for health system goals. We used a discrete choice experiment to elicit goal weights. To obtain social justice weights respondents were placed behind a 'veil of ignorance'. To ensure that respondents understood their task, we instructed them in a classroom setting. RESULTS: We identified five health system goals. All five goals significantly affected choice behavior. An equitable distribution of health obtained the highest weight (0.34), followed by average level of health (0.29) and financial fairness (0.24). Both process outcomes (utility derived from the process and its distribution) received much lower weights (0.07 and 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our framework adds to that of the World Health Organization. We demonstrated the feasibility of measuring societal valuation of health system goals with a multi-attribute technique based on trade-offs. Our weights placed much greater emphasis on health and health inequality than on process outcomes. Our study improves the methodology of international health system performance comparison and thereby enhances global evidence-based health policy information.
Authors: Shauni Van Doren; David De Coninck; Kirsten Hermans; Anja Declercq Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.390