Health care priority setting: Principles, practice and challenges

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Volumn 2, Issue , 2004, Pages

  Mitton, Craig ^a   Donaldson, Cam ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Marginal analysis; Priority setting; Program budgeting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUDGET; CANADA; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIENCE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HISTORY; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; POLITICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 4243065023     PISSN: 14787547     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-2-3     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A: Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science and Medicine 2000, 50:63-75.
2. Lomas J, Woods J, Veenstra G: Devolving authority for health care in Canada's provinces: 1. An introduction to the issues. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1997, 156(3):371-377.
3. Mitton C, Donaldson C: Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers. Health Policy 2002, 60(1):39-58.
4. Birch S, Chambers S: To each according to need: a community-based approach to allocating health care resources. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1993, 149:607-612.
5. Donaldson C, Mitton C, Currie G: Managing Medicare: the pre-requisite to spending or reform. The Health Papers No. 157. Toronto: CD Howe Institute 2002.
6. Mitton C, Donaldson C: Tools of the trade: a comparative analysis of approaches to priority setting in health care. Health Services Management Research 2003, 16:96-105.
7. Mooney G, Gerard K, Donaldson C, Farrar S: Priority Setting in Purchasing: Some Practical Guidelines. (Research paper number 6) Scotland: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts 1992.
8. Cohen D: Marginal analysis in practice: an alternative to needs assessment for contracting health care. British Medical Journal 1994, 309:781-785.
9. Shackley P, Ryan M: Involving consumers in health care decision making. Health Care Analysis 1995, 3(3):196-204.
10. Mabin V, King G, Menzies M, Joyce K: Public sector priority setting using decision support tools. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2001, 60(2):44-59.
11. Astley J, Wake-Dyster W: Evidence-based priority setting. Australian Health Review 2001, 24(2):32-39.
12. Peacock S: An Evaluation of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis Applied in South Australian Hospitals. Melbourne: Center for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University 1998.
13. Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 2000, 321(7272):1300-1.
14. Singer P, Martin D, Giacomini M, Purdy L: Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 2000, 321:1316-1318.
15. Ruta DA, Donaldson C, Gilray I: Economics, public health and health care purchasing: the Tayside experience of programme budgeting and marginal analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996, 1(4):185-193.
16. Donaldson C, Mooney G: Needs assessment, priority setting, and contracts for health care: an economic view. British Medical Journal 1991, 303:1529-1530.
17. McIver S, Baines D, Ham C, McLeod H: Setting Priorities and managing demand in the NHS. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre 2001.
18. Ratcliffe J, Donaldson C, Macphee S: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: a case study of maternity services. Journal of Public Health medicine 1996, 18(2):175-182.
19. Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J, Abelson J, Morgan K: 'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science and Medicine 2002, 54:1825-37.
20. Mitton C, Donaldson C: Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Health Policy 2003, 64:335-348.