Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: A systematic review

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 174-184

  Polisena, Julie ^a   Clifford, Tammy ^a   Elshaug, Adam G ^b,e   Mitton, Craig ^c   Russell, Erin ^d   Skidmore, Becky ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Disinvestment; priority setting; resource allocation health policy

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING PROCESS; DISINVESTMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY SETTING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION DECISION; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; BUDGET CONTROL; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; TECHNOLOGY;

INVESTMENTS;

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EMBASE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PATIENT SAFETY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICES; INVESTMENTS; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84876544166     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000068     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. CIHI. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) [Internet]. Ottawa: The Institute; 2011. Healthcare spending to reach $192 billion this year; 2010. http://www. cihi. ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/ spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release-28oct10 (accessed November 24, 2011).
2. Conference Board of Canada. Understanding health care cost drivers and escalators [Internet]. Ottawa: The Board; 2004. http://www. health. alberta. ca/documents/Health-Costs-Drivers-CBC-2004. pdf (accessed November 24, 2011).
3. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Policy perspectives on the obsolescence of health technologies in Canada: A discussion paper [Internet]. Ottawa: CADTH; 2009. (Policy Forum). [cited 2011 Nov 24]. http://www. cadth. ca/en/policy-forum/discussion-papers/policyperspectives-on-the-obsolescence-of- health (accessed November 24, 2011).
4. Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, et al. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust [Internet]. 2009;190: 269-273. https: //www. mja. com. au/journal/2009/190/5/identi fying-existing-health-care-services-do-not-provide-value-money (accessed October 19, 2011).
5. Crockett A, Cranston J, Moss J, et al. Program budgeting and marginal analysis: A case study in chronic airflow limitation. Aust Health Rev. 1999;22: 65-77.
6. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Welcome to theMedical Services Advisory Committee [Internet]. CanberraACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011. Review of kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fracture and review of interim funded service: Vertebroplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fracture; 2011. http:// www. msac. gov. au/internet/msac/publishing. nsf/Content/27. 1-1 (accessed November 24, 2011).
7. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Welcome to the Medical Services Advisory Committee [Internet]. Canberra ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011. Review of interim funded service: Artificial intervertebral disc replacement-lumbar; 2011. http:// www. msac. gov. au/internet/msac/publishing. nsf/Content/1090. 1 (accessed November 24, 2011).
8. Carter R, Stone C, Vos T, et al. Trial of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to assist cancer control planning in Australia. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 2000. (PBMA Series No 5: Summary Report).
9. Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, Campbell D, Bryan S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2011;11: 169. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155484 (accessed October 19, 2011).
10. Mitton C, Donaldson C, Shellian B, Pagenkopf C. Priority setting in a Canadian surgical department: A case study using program budgeting and marginal analysis. Can J Surg. 2003;46: 23-29.
11. Spenceley S, Halma L. Improving surgical service utilization-An application of program budgeting and marginal analysis. Ambul Surg. 2002;10: 37-44.
12. Urquhart B, Mitton C, Peacock S. Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs. J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2008;13(Suppl 1): 41-45. http://jhsrp. rsmjournals. com/content/13/suppl-1/41. full. pdf+html (accessed October 19, 2011).
13. Twaddle S, Walker A. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: Application within programmes to assist purchasing in Greater Glasgow Health Board. Health Policy. 1995;33: 91-105.
14. Ball H, Kemp L, Fordham R. Road testing programme budgeting and marginal analysis: Norfolk Mental Health pilot project. The Psychiatrist [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2011 Oct 19];33(4): 141-4. http://pb. rcpsych. org/ content/33/4/141. full. pdf+html (accessed October 19, 2011).
15. Ratcliffe J, Donaldson C, Macphee S. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: A case study of maternity services. J Public Health Med [Internet]. 1996;18: 175-182. http://jpubhealth. oxfordjournals. org/ content/18/2/175. full. pdf (accessed October 19, 2011).
16. 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: 185-193.
17. Bohmer P, Pain C, Watt A, Abernethy P, Sceats J. Maximising health gain within available resources in the New Zealand public health system. Health Policy. 2001;55: 37-50.
18. Lindström H, Waldau S. Ethically acceptable prioritisation of childless couples and treatment rationing: "Accountability for reasonableness". Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139: 176-186.
19. INAHTA (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment). International network of agencies for HTA [Internet]. Stockholm (Sweden): INAHTA; 2012. http://www. inahta. net/ (accessed June 28, 2012).
20. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK. Priority setting at the micro-, meso-and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda. Health Policy. 2007;82: 78-94.
21. Mortimer D. Reorienting programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) towards disinvestment. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2010;10: 288. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964694 (accessed October 19, 2011).
22. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: Principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc [Internet]. 2004;2: 3. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC411060/pdf/1478-7547-2-3. pdf (accessed October 19, 2011).
23. Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, Donaldson C. Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority. J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2009;14: 234-242. http://jhsrp. rsmjournals. com/content/14/4/234. full. pdf+html (accessed October 19, 2011).
24. Tsourapas A, Frew E. Evaluating 'success' in programme budgeting and marginal analysis: A literature review. J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2011;16(3): 177-83. http://jhsrp. rsmjournals. com/content/16/3/177. full. pdf+html (accessed October 19, 2011).
25. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially lowvalue health care practices: An Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 19;197: 556-560.