Literature DB >> 28801762

Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

Jeff Richardson1, Angelo Iezzi2, Aimee Maxwell2, Gang Chen2.   

Abstract

It has been proposed that equity may be included in the economic evaluation of health services using the 'proportional shortfall' (PS)-the proportion of a person's QALY expectation that they would lose because of an illness. The present paper reports the results of a population survey designed to test whether PS helped to explain people's preferences for health services and whether it did this better than the absolute shortfall or the equity related variables that PS seeks to replace. Survey respondents were asked to allocate 100 votes between 13 scenarios and a standard scenario. Variation in the allocation of votes was explained by health gain and different combinations of the equity variables. Differences in votes for the comparisons were significantly related to differences in PS but the relationship was weaker than between votes and the age related variables. Cases were identified where PS suggested a priority ordering of services which was strongly rejected by respondents. It is concluded that the use of PS is unlikely to improve the alignment of priorities with public preferences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Equity-efficiency; Fair innings; Proportional shortfall; Severity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28801762     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  5 in total

1.  Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall.

Authors:  Elly A Stolk; Gijs van Donselaar; Werner B F Brouwer; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.

Authors:  M Ryan; D A Scott; C Reeves; A Bate; E R van Teijlingen; E M Russell; M Napper; C M Robb
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall.

Authors:  E J van de Wetering; E A Stolk; N J A van Exel; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-08-26

5.  Equity in health care prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value.

Authors:  Elly A Stolk; Stefan J Pickee; André H J A Ament; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.980

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.