Which Priorities for Health and Well-Being Stand Out After Accounting for Tangled Threats and Costs? Simulating Potential Intervention Portfolios in Large Urban Counties.

Policy Points Interventions in a regional system with intertwined threats and costs should address those threats that have the strongest, quickest, and most pervasive cross-impacts. Instead of focusing on an individual county's apparent shortcomings, a regional intervention portfolio can yield greater results when it is designed to counter those systemic threats, especially poverty and inadequate social support, that most undermine health and well-being virtually everywhere. Likewise, efforts to reduce smoking, addiction, and violent crime and to improve routine care, health insurance, and youth education are important for most counties to unlock both short- and long-term potential. CONTEXT: Counties across the United States must contend with multiple, intertwined threats and costs that defy simple solutions. Decision makers face the necessary but difficult task of prioritizing those interventions with the greatest potential to produce equitable health and well-being. METHODS: Using County Health Rankings data for a predefined peer group of 39 urban US counties, we performed statistical regressions to identify 37 cross-impacts among 15 threats to health and well-being. Adding appropriate time delays, we then developed a dynamic model of these cross-impacts and simulated each of the counties over 20 years to assess the likely impact of 12 potential interventions-individually and in a combined portfolio-for three outcomes: (1) years of potential life lost, (2) fraction of adults in fair or poor health, and (3) total spending on urgent services. FINDINGS: The combined portfolio yielded improvements by year 20 that are considerably greater than those at year 5, indicating that the time delays have a major effect. Despite the wide variation in threat levels across counties, the list of top-ranked interventions is strikingly similar. Poverty reduction and social support were the most highly ranked interventions, even in the shorter term, for all outcomes in all counties. Interventions affecting smoking, addiction, routine care, health insurance, violent crime, and youth education also were important contributors to some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To safeguard health and well-being in a system dominated by tangled threats and costs, the most important priorities for a county cannot be simply inferred from a profile of its relative strengths and weaknesses. Two interventions stood out as the top priorities for almost all the counties in this study, and six others also were important contributors. Interventions directed toward these priority areas are likely to yield the greatest impact, irrespective of the county's specifics. A significant concentration of resources in a regional portfolio therefore ought to go to these strongest contributors for equitable health and well-being.

Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

The allocation of healthcare resources among competing priorities requires an assessment of the expected costs and health effects of investing resources in the activities and of the opportunity cost of the expenditure. To date, much effort has been devoted to assessing the expected costs and health effects, but there remains an important need to also reflect the consequences of uncertainty in resource allocation decisions and the value of further research to reduce uncertainty. Decision making with uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal, resulting in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to better inform resource decisions. This value can be quantified using value of information (VOI) analysis. This report from the ISPOR VOI Task Force describes methods for computing 4 VOI measures: the expected value of perfect information, expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), expected value of sample information (EVSI), and expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Several methods exist for computing EVPPI and EVSI, and this report provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate method based on the features of the decision problem. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing VOI analyses. The software needed to compute VOI is discussed, and areas for future research are highlighted.

Introducing health technology assessment in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: The concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA. RESULTS: Between the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting. CONCLUSION: While the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.

Healthcare Resource Allocation and Priority-setting. A European Challenge.

The right to health, as a right to healthcare, represents the most expensive social right in Europe, significantly affecting the total budget of the Member States, both in universal and insurance healthcare systems. No healthcare system provides unlimited healthcare resources to all its users. The resources available for healthcare are limited compared with demand, and all healthcare systems, regardless of their financing and organisation, employ mechanisms to prioritise finite healthcare resources. The progressive increase in healthcare costs in a context of scarce resources, worsened by the fiscal crisis of the 1990s and economic crises spreading in Europe since 2007, has highlighted the ever more urgent need to address the fundamental issues of resource allocation and priority-setting at both European and national levels. Hence, priority-setting is arguably one of the most important health policy issues of our time at global, European and national levels.

Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in healthcare can be guided by both efficiency and equity principles. The latter principle is often explicated in terms of disease severity and, for example, defined as absolute or proportional shortfall. These severity operationalizations do not explicitly consider patients' age, even though age may be inextricably related to severity and an equity-relevant characteristic. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the relative strength of societal preferences for severity and age for informing allocation decisions in healthcare. METHODS: We elicited preferences for severity and age in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (N = 1025) by applying choice tasks and person-trade-off tasks in a design in which severity levels and ages varied both separately and simultaneously between patient groups. We calculated person trade-off ratios and, in addition, applied ordinary least squares regression models to aid interpretation of the ratios when both severity and age varied. RESULTS: Respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 2.46-3.50) to reimbursing treatment for relatively more severely ill and younger patients when preferences for both were elicited separately. When preferences were elicited simultaneously, respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 1.98 and 2.42) to reimbursing treatment for relatively younger patients, irrespective of patients' severity levels. Ratios varied depending on severity level and age and were generally higher when the difference in severity and age was larger between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that severity operationalizations and equity weights based on severity alone may not align with societal preferences. Adjusting decision-making frameworks to reflect age-related societal preferences should be considered.

Social determinants of health priorities of state Medicaid programs.

BACKGROUND: Growing understanding of the influence of social determinants of health (SDH) on healthcare costs and outcomes for low income populations is leading State Medicaid agencies to consider incorporating SDH into their program design. This paper explores states' current approaches to SDH. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach combined a web-based survey sent through the Medicaid Medical Director Network (MMDN) listserv and semi-structured interviews conducted at the MMDN Annual Meeting in November 2017. RESULTS: Seventeen MMDs responded to the survey and 14 participated in an interview. More than half reported current collection of SDH data and all had intentions for future collection. Most commonly reported SDH screening topics were housing instability and food insecurity. In-depth interviews underscored barriers to optimal SDH approaches. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that Medicaid leaders recognize the importance of SDH in improving health, health equity, and healthcare costs for the Medicaid population but challenges for sustainable implementation remain.

Withholding and withdrawing treatment for cost-effectiveness reasons: Are they ethically on par?

In healthcare priority settings, early access to treatment before reimbursement decisions gives rise to problems of whether negative decisions for cost-effectiveness reasons should result in withdrawing treatment, already accessed by patients. Among professionals there seems to be a strong attitude to distinguish between withdrawing and withholding treatment, viewing the former as ethically worse. In this article the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment for reasons of cost effectiveness is explored by analysing the doing/allowing distinction, different theories of justice, consequentialist and virtue perspectives. The authors do not find any strong reasons for an intrinsic difference, but do find some reasons for a consequentialist difference, given present attitudes. However, overall, such a difference does not, all things considered, provide a convincing reason against withdrawal, given the greater consequentialist gain of using cost-effective treatment. As a result, patients should be properly informed when given early access to treatment, that such treatment can be later withdrawn following a negative reimbursement decision.

Funding Priorities: Data-Driven Approach for Prioritizing Community Health Needs in Vulnerable Communities.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated nonprofit hospitals to complete community health needs assessments (CHNAs) every 3 years to identify priority health needs for the community they serve. The CHNA must include input from the community in the determination of health needs. Large variation exists across CHNAs on methods used in the integration of quantitative and qualitative data both in the determination and prioritization of health needs and those needs chosen by the hospital for community benefit funding. An important part of the CHNA is the prioritization of the needs identified, as it can influence hospital community benefit funding decisions. This article describes a method for clearly integrating qualitative and quantitative data in the CHNA process offering a best practice strategy for conducting CHNAs. The method uses an approach based on flexible, objective decision points that can be used to both generate a list of significant health needs and a prioritization of those needs based on community input, influencing funding priorities of the hospital. The method provides a standard approach useful across multiple hospital CHNAs in both rural and urban settings, and in collaborative-based CHNAs (local public health departments and hospitals) as well.

Priorities for Investing in Community Health Improvement: A Comparison of Decision Makers in Public Health, Nonprofit Hospitals, and Community Nonprofits.

CONTEXT: As a result of additional requirements for tax exemption, many nonprofit hospitals have become more actively involved in community health improvement. There is an open question, however, as to how decision makers in hospitals decide which kind of improvement projects should receive priority and how hospital managers' priorities compare with those of decision makers in public health agencies and community-based nonprofits. OBJECTIVE: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in public health, nonprofit hospitals, and community nonprofits when allocating resources to community health projects. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey with a discrete choice experiment, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects, which varied along several project characteristics. Respondents included managers of community health and community benefit at nonprofit hospitals (n = 225), managers at local public health departments (n = 200), and leaders of community nonprofits (n = 136). Respondents were located in 47 of 50 US states. A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided in interpretation of results. RESULTS: Respondents from all 3 groups showed strong agreement on community health priorities. Projects were more likely to be selected when they addressed a health issue identified on community health needs assessment, involved cross-sector collaboration, or were supported by evidence. Project characteristics that mattered less included the time needed to measure the project's impact and the project's target population. CONCLUSION: Elements often considered central to community health, such as long-term investment and prioritizing vulnerable populations, may not be considered by decision makers as important as other aspects of resource allocation. If we want greater priority for ideas such as health equity and social determinants of health, it will take a concerted effort from practitioners and policy makers to reshape expectations.

[Prioritization or unlimited resources in orthopedics and trauma surgery?] / Priorisierung oder unbegrenzte Ressourcen in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie?

The development of the healthcare system in Germany is increasingly approaching human and economic limits. A social consensus and a political concept at which point priorities are promoted and for which services the money should be primarily spent, do not exist on the whole. As soon as it becomes clear that resources are limited and that is now, prioritization has to be introduced to avoid the alternative threat of rationing of treatment benefits. The goal of prioritization is to rationally and optimally use the existing but limited resources. Medical progress and the relationship to the demographic development are the variables in the future. The individual care of the patient, patients' needs and dependence on access to treatment are the foundations of ethical actions. They must be at the center of attention for doctors and nurses because, after all they are the patient's advocates in the complex healthcare system. At the same time, unjustified claims for entitlement must be rejected just as a preservation of vested rights. Efficiency and economic considerations in diagnostics and treatment are not mutually exclusive. The physician acts as a mediator between the claims of the patient to be treated, the individual realization and the existing resources in the healthcare system.

Appeal to the Rule of Rescue in health care: discriminating and not benevolent?

Thirty years of debate have passed since the term "Rule of Rescue" has been introduced into medical ethics. Its main focus was on whether or why medical treatment for acute conditions should have priority over preventive measures irrespective of opportunity costs. Recent contributions, taking account of the widespread reluctance to accept purely efficiency-oriented prioritization approaches, advance another objection: Prioritizing treatment, they hold, discriminates against statistical lives. The reference to opportunity costs has also been renewed in a distinctly ethical fashion: It has been stipulated that favoring help for identifiable lives amounts to a lack of benevolence for one's fellow creatures. The present article argues against both objections. It suggests that the debate's focus on consequences (deaths or severe ill health) should be reoriented by asking which aspects of such states of affairs are actually attributable to a decision maker who judges within a specific situation of choice.

Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems.

Expenditure on cancer therapies is rising rapidly in many countries, particularly for cancer drugs. In recent years, this has stimulated a global debate among the public, patients, clinicians, decision-makers, and the pharmaceutical industry on value, affordability, and sustainability propositions relating to cancer therapies. In this article, we discuss some recent developments in evidence-based approaches to priority setting and resource allocation in Canadian cancer systems. These developments include new methods for deliberative public engagement, generating and using real-world evidence, multi-criteria decision analysis, and handling uncertainty with evidence for gene therapies.

Supportive care priorities of low-income Latina breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the supportive care needs of a sample of low-income Latina breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Ninety-nine Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors who self-identified as Latina and reported an income below the US Census Bureau low-income threshold were recruited from the oncology clinic of a major public safety net hospital. Eligible participants completed the supportive care needs survey (SCNS-SF34) and a demographic questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of respondents had unmet needs. The majority of frequently reported unmet needs involved (1) access to and delivery of health-related information and (2) physical function. These findings appear to contrast with those of other studies of supportive care needs in heterogeneous cancer survivors, most of which describe psychological concerns as most urgent. CONCLUSIONS: Participants espoused information-related needs with a higher frequency than many other samples of cancer survivors. This study population may also require a particularly high level of assistance with overcoming participation restrictions. Further research is needed to understand these discrepancies and to address unmet needs across all domains.

The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful. METHODS: A mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n = 19); meeting minutes (n = 28)), media analysis (n = 114) and stakeholder interviews (n = 9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework. RESULTS: Priority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

Visualizing value for money in public health interventions.

Background: The Socio-Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR) has been developed for value for money analysis of health services through stakeholder workshops. This article reports on its application for prioritization of interventions within public health programmes. Methods: The STAR tool was used by identifying costs and service activity for interventions within commissioned public health programmes, with benefits estimated from the literature on economic evaluations in terms of costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs); consensus on how these QALY values applied to local services was obtained with local commissioners. Results: Local cost-effectiveness estimates could be made for some interventions. Methodological issues arose from gaps in the evidence base for other interventions, inability to closely match some performance monitoring data with interventions, and disparate time horizons of published QALY data. Practical adjustment for these issues included using population prevalences and utility states where intervention specific evidence was lacking, and subdivision of large contracts into specific intervention costs using staffing ratios. The STAR approach proved useful in informing commissioning decisions and understanding the relative value of local public health interventions. Conclusions: Further work is needed to improve robustness of the process and develop a visualization tool for use by public health departments.

Use of programme budgeting and marginal analysis to set priorities for local NHS dental services: learning from the north east of England.

Background: Priority setting is necessary where competing demands exceed the finite resources available. The aim of the study was to develop and test a prioritization framework based upon programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) as a tool to assist National Health Service (NHS) commissioners in their management of resources for local NHS dental services. Methods: Twenty-seven stakeholders (5 dentists, 8 commissioners and 14 patients) participated in a case-study based in a former NHS commissioning organization in the north of England. Stakeholders modified local decision-making criteria and applied them to a number of different scenarios. Results: The majority of financial resources for NHS dental services in the commissioning organization studied were allocated to primary care dental practitioners' contracts in perpetuity, potentially constraining commissioners' abilities to shift resources. Compiling the programme budget was successful, but organizational flux and difficulties engaging local NHS commissioners significantly impacted upon the marginal analysis phase. Conclusions: NHS dental practitioners' contracts resemble budget-silos which do not facilitate local resource reallocation. 'Context-specific' factors significantly challenged the successful implementation and impact of PBMA. A local PBMA champion embedded within commissioning organizations should be considered. Participants found visual depiction of the cost-value ratio helpful during their initial priority setting deliberations.

Self-responsibility, rationing and treatment decision making - managing moral narratives alongside fiscal reality in the obesity surgery clinic.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the prevalence of severe obesity and its concomitant morbidities is widely acknowledged as one of the most pressing global health priorities. Nevertheless, a paucity of effective interventions and universal pressure on health-care budgets means that access to obesity treatments is often limited. Although health-care rationing can be conceived as a socially constructed process, little is known about how decisions emerge within the context of face-to-face doctor-patient interactions. METHODS: In this study, we used in-depth interviews and clinic observations to investigate clinicians' (n = 11) and patients' (n = 22) experiences of the rationing of obesity surgery and to examine how broader cultural assumptions around personal responsibility for health emerged in the context of clinical interactions. RESULTS: Patients and clinicians worked within similar frameworks when it came to self-responsibility for health and the appropriateness of providing publicly-funded weight loss surgery. Issues around personal accountability dominated consultations, and patients were expected to provide narratives of the development of their obesity and to account for the failure of previous interventions. Clinicians faced the added pressure of having to prioritise a limited number of patients for surgery, which was predominantly managed through mandating pre-referral weight loss targets. DISCUSSION: Although clinicians sought to maintain an empathic attitude towards individual patients, in practice they were conflicted by their responsibility to ration health-care resources and tended to rely on entrenched models of behaviour change to allocate treatment. As a result, the content of consultations was mostly focused on issues of personal responsibility, reflecting wider stigmatized attitudes towards extreme obesity.

Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: An exploration of current practice in health systems research.

International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high-income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed with 16 grants officers working for 11 funders and organisations that support health systems research: the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Comic Relief, Doris Duke Foundation, European Commission, International Development Research Centre, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Research Council of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UK Department of International Development, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. Thematic analysis of the data demonstrates their funding schemes promote health systems research with (up to) five key features that advance health equity: being conducted with worst-off populations, focusing on research topics that advance equitable health systems, having LMIC ownership of the research agenda, strengthening LMIC research capacity, and having an impact on health disparities. The different types of incentives that encouraged proposed projects to have these features are identified and classified by their strength (strong, moderate, weak). It is suggested that research funders ought to create and maintain funding schemes with strong incentives for the features identified above in order to more effectively help reduce global health disparities.

Current Practices and Priority Issues Regarding Nutritional Assessment and Patient Satisfaction with Hospital Menus.

PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction with hospital food enhances consumption and adequate intake of nutrients required for recovery from illness/injury and maintenance of health; accordingly, the nutrient content of the menu must balance patient preferences. This study of Ontario hospital foodservice departments collected data on current practices of analyzing the nutritional adequacy and assessing patient satisfaction with menus, and it explored perceptions of priority issues. METHODS: Foodservice managers/directors from 57 of 140 (41%) hospitals responded to cross-sectional in-depth telephone interviews. Deductive analysis of responses to open-ended questions supplemented quantitative data from closed-ended questions. RESULTS: The hospitals without long-term care facilities (LTCFs) assessed regular (58%), therapeutic (53%), and texture-modified (47%) menus for nutritional adequacy. This differed from hospitals governing LTCFs where there was a higher frequency of assessment of regular (75%), therapeutic (75%), and textured-modified (66%) menus. Most departments (86%-94%) obtained patient satisfaction feedback at the departmental/corporate levels. Many identified budget and labour issues as priorities rather than assessing menus for nutritional adequacy and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital menus were not consistently assessed for nutritional adequacy and patient satisfaction; common assessment methodologies and standards were absent. Compliance standards seem to increase the frequency of menu assessment as demonstrated by hospitals governing LTCFs.