Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment.

IF 1.5 4区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
V Meusel, E Mentzakis, P Baji, G Fiorentini, F Paolucci
{"title":"Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"V Meusel,&nbsp;E Mentzakis,&nbsp;P Baji,&nbsp;G Fiorentini,&nbsp;F Paolucci","doi":"10.1007/s10754-023-09347-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Worldwide, social healthcare systems must face the challenges of a growing scarcity of resources and of its inevitable distributional effects. Explicit criteria are needed to define the boundaries of public reimbursement decisions. As Germany stands at the beginning of such a discussion, more formalised priority setting procedures seem in order. Recent research identified multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a promising approach to inform and to guide decision-making in healthcare systems. In that regard, this paper aims to analyse the relative weight assigned to various criteria in setting priority interventions in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was employed in 2015 to elicit equity and efficiency preferences of 263 decision makers, through six attributes. The experiment allowed us to rate different policy interventions based on their features in a composite league table (CLT). As number of potential beneficiaries, severity of disease, individual health benefits and cost-effectiveness are the most relevant criteria for German decision makers within the sample population, the results display an overall higher preference towards efficiency criteria. Specific high priority interventions are mental disorders and cardiovascular diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":44403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","volume":"23 3","pages":"411-431"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-023-09347-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Worldwide, social healthcare systems must face the challenges of a growing scarcity of resources and of its inevitable distributional effects. Explicit criteria are needed to define the boundaries of public reimbursement decisions. As Germany stands at the beginning of such a discussion, more formalised priority setting procedures seem in order. Recent research identified multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a promising approach to inform and to guide decision-making in healthcare systems. In that regard, this paper aims to analyse the relative weight assigned to various criteria in setting priority interventions in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was employed in 2015 to elicit equity and efficiency preferences of 263 decision makers, through six attributes. The experiment allowed us to rate different policy interventions based on their features in a composite league table (CLT). As number of potential beneficiaries, severity of disease, individual health benefits and cost-effectiveness are the most relevant criteria for German decision makers within the sample population, the results display an overall higher preference towards efficiency criteria. Specific high priority interventions are mental disorders and cardiovascular diseases.

德国医疗保健系统的优先级设置:离散选择实验的结果。
在世界范围内,社会医疗保健系统必须面对资源日益稀缺及其不可避免的分配效应的挑战。需要明确的标准来界定公共偿还决定的界限。由于德国正站在此类讨论的起点,更正式的优先顺序设定程序似乎已经就位。最近的研究确定了多标准决策分析(MCDA)作为一种有前途的方法来告知和指导医疗保健系统的决策。在这方面,本文旨在分析在德国设置优先干预措施时赋予各种标准的相对权重。2015年采用离散选择实验(DCE),通过6个属性引出263名决策者的公平和效率偏好。该实验使我们能够根据不同的政策干预措施在综合排行榜(CLT)中的特征对其进行评级。由于潜在受益者的数量、疾病的严重程度、个人健康福利和成本效益是样本人口中德国决策者最相关的标准,因此结果显示总体上更倾向于效率标准。具体的高度优先干预措施是精神障碍和心血管疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The focus of the International Journal of Health Economics and Management is on health care systems and on the behavior of consumers, patients, and providers of such services. The links among management, public policy, payment, and performance are core topics of the relaunched journal. The demand for health care and its cost remain central concerns. Even as medical innovation allows providers to improve the lives of their patients, questions remain about how to efficiently deliver health care services, how to pay for it, and who should pay for it. These are central questions facing innovators, providers, and payers in the public and private sectors. One key to answering these questions is to understand how people choose among alternative arrangements, either in markets or through the political process. The choices made by healthcare managers concerning the organization and production of that care are also crucial. There is an important connection between the management of a health care system and its economic performance. The primary audience for this journal will be health economists and researchers in health management, along with the larger group of health services researchers. In addition, research and policy analysis reported in the journal should be of interest to health care providers, managers and policymakers, who need to know about the pressures facing insurers and governments, with consequences for regulation and mandates. The editors of the journal encourage submissions that analyze the behavior and interaction of the actors in health care, viz. consumers, providers, insurers, and governments. Preference will be given to contributions that combine theoretical with empirical work, evaluate conflicting findings, present new information, or compare experiences between countries and jurisdictions. In addition to conventional research articles, the journal will include specific subsections for shorter concise research findings and cont ributions to management and policy that provide important descriptive data or arguments about what policies follow from research findings. The composition of the editorial board is designed to cover the range of interest among economics and management researchers.Officially cited as: Int J Health Econ ManagFrom 2001 to 2014 the journal was published as International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. (Articles published in Vol. 1-14 officially cited as: Int J Health Care Finance Econ)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信