Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature

Health Policy

Volumn 93, Issue 2-3, 2009, Pages 77-84

  Shah, Koonal K ^a  

^a Office of Health Economics   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health care rationing; Health maximisation; Public preferences; Quality adjusted life years; Severity

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMBASE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH STATUS; MEDLINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 70350582898     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.08.005     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Culyer A.J. Maximising the health of the whole community. In: New B. (Ed). Rationing: talk and action in health care (1997), BMJ/King's Fund, London
2. Dolan P., Shaw R., Tsuchiya A., and Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 14 (2005) 197-208
3. Culyer A.J. The morality of efficiency in health care-some uncomfortable implications. Health Economics 1 (1992) 7-18
4. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (2008). http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp?domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459
5. Department of Health. Tackling health inequalities: a programme for action (2003), DH, London
6. NICE. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. second ed. (2008). http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf
7. Claxton K., and Culyer A.J. Not a NICE fallacy: a reply to Dr. Quigley. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (2008) 598-601
8. Department of Health. The patient's charter (1992), HMSO, London
9. Department of Health. The new NHS: modern, dependable (1997), HMSO, London
10. http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/
11. Schwappach D.L.B. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expectations 5 (2002) 210-222
12. Norwegian Commission for prioritising in healthcare. Guidelines for prioritising in healthcare (1987), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
13. Sorenson C., Drummond M., and Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union (2008), WHO, Copenhagen. http://www.euro.who.int/document/e91271.pdf
14. Nikolentzos A., Nolte E., and Mays N. Paying for (expensive) drugs in the statutory system: an overview of experiences in 13 countries a report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (2008), DH, London
15. Antonanzas F. Challenges to achieving value in drug spending in a decentralized country: the Spanish case. Value in Health 6 (2003) S52-S63
16. Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Priorities in health care: ethics, economy, implementation (1995), SOU, Stockholm
17. Richardson J., and McKie J. Empiricism ethics and orthodox economic theory: what is the appropriate basis for decision-making in the health sector?. Social Science & Medicine 60 (2005) 265-275
18. NICE. Citizens Council Report: Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and the severity of illness (2008). http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/opportunitiestogetinvolved/citizenscouncil/reports/reports.jsp
19. Dolan P., Edlin R., Tsuchiya A., Armitage C., Hukin A., Brazier J., et al. The relative societal value of health gains to different beneficiaries (2008). http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/projects/RM03_JH11_PD.shtml
20. Donaldson C., Baker R., Bateman I., Jones-Lee M., Lancsar E., Loomes G., et al. Weighting and valuing quality adjusted life years: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project (2008). http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/projects/RM03_JH12_CD.shtml
21. Rawls J. A theory of justice (1972), Oxford University Press, Oxford
22. Brock D. Priority to the worse off in healthcare resource prioritisation. In: Battin M., Rhodes R., and Silvers A. (Eds). Healthcare and social justice (2001), Oxford University Press, New York
23. Daniels N. Just healthcare (1985), Harvard University Press, Cambridge
24. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of healthcare. Health Policy 24 (1993) 227-238
25. Hansson L., Norheim O.F., and Ruyter K.W. Equality, explicitness, severity, and rigidity: the Oregon plan evaluated from a Scandinavian perspective. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1994) 343-366
26. Ryan M., Scott D.A., Reeves C., Bate A., van Teijlingen E.R., Russell E.M., et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5 (2001) 1-186
27. Abelson J., Lomas J., Eyles J., Birch S., and Veenstra G. Does the community want devolved authority? Results of deliberative polling in Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal 153 (1995) 403-412
28. Dolan P. The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. Journal of Health Economics 17 (1998) 39-52
29. Dolan P., and Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51 (2000) 19-30
30. Dolan P., and Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Economics 7 (1998) 307-322
31. Dolan P., and Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. Journal of Health Economics 24 (2005) 703-714
32. Nord E. Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome lack of discussion of surprising finding. Journal of Health Economics 25 (2006) 170-172
33. Dolan P., and Tsuchiya A. Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome criticism of inconvenient finding?-a reply to Erik Nord. Journal of Health Economics 25 (2006) 173-174
34. Green C. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities. Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 2247-2255
35. Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of health changes. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2004) 1101-1116
36. Jacobsson F., Carstensen J., and Borgquist L. Caring externalities in health economic evaluation: how are they related to severity of illness?. Health Policy 73 (2005) 172-182
37. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 6 (1991) 234-242
38. Nord E. Health politicians do not wish to maximize health benefits (original in Norwegian). Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 113 (1993) 1171-1173
39. Oddsson K. Assessing attitude towards prioritizing in healthcare in Iceland. Health Policy 66 (2003) 135-146
40. Richardson J. Critique and some recent contributions to the theory of cost utility analysis. Working Paper 77, Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 2007.
41. Ryynänen O.P., Myllykangas M., Kinnunen J., and Takala J. Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Social Science & Medicine 49 (1999) 1529-1539
42. Stolk E.A., Pickee S.J., Ament A.H.J.A., and Busschback J.J.V. Equity in healthcare prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value. Health Policy 74 (2005) 343-355
43. Ubel P.A. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?. Social Science & Decision Making 49 (1999) 895-903
44. Ubel P.A., Loewenstein G., Scanlon D., and Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Medical Decision Making 16 (1996) 108-116
45. Ubel P.A., Dekay M.L., and Asch D.A. Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure?. Medical Decision Making 18 (1998) 141-148
46. Nord E. Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of healthcare interventions. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 1 (2001) 85-92
47. Abellan-Perpiñan J.M., and Pinto-Prades J.L. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?. Health Economics 8 (1999) 701-707
48. Nord E. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (1993) 37-42
49. Pinto-Prades J.L. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources?. Health Economics 6 (1997) 71-81
50. Ritov I., and Baron J. Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992) 49-61
51. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (1991) 1039-1061
52. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 1124-1130
53. Shickle D. Public preferences for health care: prioritisation in the United Kingdom. Bioethics 11 (1997) 277-290
54. Drummond M.F., Sculpher M.J., Torrance G.W., O'Brien B.J., and Stoddart G.L. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes (2005), Oxford University Press, Oxford
55. Nord E. Personal communication (2008)
56. Nord E., Pinto-Prades J.L., Richardson J., Menzel P., and Ubel P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics 8 (1999) 25-39
57. Cookson R., and Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 49 (1999) 63-74
58. Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programmes. Medical Decision Making 15 (1995) 201-208
59. Nord E., Richardson J., Street A., Kuhse H., and Singer P. Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Social Science & Medicine 41 (1995) 1429-1437
60. Ubel P.A., Richardson J., and Pinto-Prades J.L. Life-saving treatments and disabilities: are all QALYs created equal?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15 (1999) 738-748
61. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Economics 6 (1997) 117-132
62. Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Social Science & Medicine 48 (1999) 267-276
63. Stolk E.A., van Donselaar G., Brouwer W.B.F., and Busschbach J.J.V. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 22 (2004) 1097-1107
64. Coote A. Direct public and patient involvement in rationing-the possibilities for direct and public involvement. In: New B. (Ed). Rationing: talk and action in health care (1997), BMJ/King's Fund, London
65. Kneeshaw J. What does the public think about rationing? A review of the evidence. In: New B. (Ed). Rationing: talk and action in health care (1997), BMJ/King's Fund, London
66. Heginbotham C. Healthcare priority-setting: a survey of doctors, managers, and the general public. Rationing in action (1993), BMJ Publishing, London