IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v147y2015icp288-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Owen-Smith, Amanda
  • Donovan, Jenny
  • Coast, Joanna

Abstract

Difficulties in setting healthcare priorities are encountered throughout the world. There is no agreement on the most appropriate principles or methods for healthcare rationing although there is some consensus that it should be undertaken as systematically and accountably as possible. Although some steps towards achieving accountability have been made at the macro and meso level, at the consultation level rationing remains implicit and poorly understood. Using morbid obesity surgery as a case study, we observed a series of UK National Health Service consultations where rationing was ongoing and conducted in-depth interviews with doctors and patients (2011–2014). A longitudinal approach was taken to research and in total 22 consultations were observed and 78 interviews were undertaken. Sampling was undertaken purposively and theoretically and analyses were undertaken thematically. Clinicians needed to prioritise 55 patients from 450 eligible referrals, but disagreed over the extent to which clinical and financial factors were the driving force behind decision-making. The most prominent rationing technique observed in consultations was rationing by selection, but examples of rationing by delay, by deterrence, and by deflection were also commonplace. Although all clinicians sought to avoid rationing by denial, only six of the 22 patients recruited to the research were known to have been treated at the end of the three-year period. Most clinicians sought to manage rationing implicitly, and only one explained the link between decision-making criteria and financial constraints on care availability. Although existing frameworks for categorising NHS rationing techniques were useful in identifying implicit strategies, in practice these techniques over-lapped substantially and we have proposed a simpler framework for analysing NHS rationing decisions at the consultation level, which includes just three categories – rationing by exclusion, rationing by deterrence, and rationing by delay.

Suggested Citation

  • Owen-Smith, Amanda & Donovan, Jenny & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 288-295.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:147:y:2015:i:c:p:288-295
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615302161
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayres, Philip J., 1996. "Rationing health care: Views from general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1021-1025, April.
    2. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    3. Lydia Kapiriri & Douglas K. Martin, 2007. "Bedside Rationing by Health Practitioners: A Case Study in a Ugandan Hospital," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 44-52, January.
    4. Jones, Ian Rees & Berney, Lee & Kelly, Moira & Doyal, Len & Griffiths, Chris & Feder, Gene & Hillier, Sheila & Rowlands, Gillian & Curtis, Sarah, 2004. "Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 93-102, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Williams, Iestyn & Allen, Kerry & Plahe, Gunveer, 2019. "Reports of rationing from the neglected realm of capital investment: Responses to resource constraint in the English National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Kushida, Shuya & Kawashima, Michie & Abe, Tetsuya, 2021. "Recommending no further treatment: Gatekeeping work of generalists at a Japanese university hospital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    3. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jane Robertson & Emily J Walkom & David A Henry, 2011. "Health Systems and Sustainability: Doctors and Consumers Differ on Threats and Solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    3. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    4. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    5. Kim Olsen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Andreas Boegh & Sofie Hansen, 2009. "GPs as citizens’ agents: prescription behavior and altruism," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 399-407, October.
    6. Jolanki, Outi & Tynkkynen, Liina-Kaisa, 2018. "Primary health care nurses’ views on patients’ abilities and resources to make choices and take decisions on health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 957-962.
    7. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    8. Russell, Jill & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2012. "Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2463-2471.
    9. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    10. Anabela Botelho & Micaela M. Pinho & Paula Veiga, 2011. "Who and how should participate in health care priority setting? Evidence from a Portuguese survey," NIMA Working Papers 43, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    11. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    12. Williams, Iestyn & Allen, Kerry & Plahe, Gunveer, 2019. "Reports of rationing from the neglected realm of capital investment: Responses to resource constraint in the English National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    14. David Mark Dror, 2018. "Health Insurance Benefit Packages Prioritized by Low-Income Clients in India: Three Criteria to Estimate Effectiveness of Choice," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Financing Micro Health Insurance Theory, Methods and Evidence, chapter 13, pages 253-270, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Mohd Zuhair & Fuli Zhou & Saurabh Pratap & Ram Babu Roy, 2022. "Eliciting key attributes of health insurance in rural India: a qualitative analysis," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Ingrid Miljeteig & Frehiwot Berhane Defaye & Paul Wakim & Dawit Neema Desalegn & Yemane Berhane & Ole Frithjof Norheim & Marion Danis, 2019. "Financial risk protection at the bedside: How Ethiopian physicians try to minimize out-of-pocket health expenditures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Lessard, Chantale & Contandriopoulos, André-Pierre & Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique, 2010. "The role (or not) of economic evaluation at the micro level: Can Bourdieu's theory provide a way forward for clinical decision-making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1948-1956, June.
    18. Romppainen, Katri & Jähi, Rita & Saloniemi, Antti & Virtanen, Pekka, 2010. "Encounters with unemployment in occupational health care: Nurses' constructions of clients without work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 605-608, February.
    19. Whynes, David K. & Ennew, Christine T. & Feighan, Teresa, 1999. "Entrepreneurial attitudes of primary health care physicians in the United Kingdom," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 331-347, March.
    20. Hilke Brockmann, 2000. "Why is health treatment for the elderly less expensive than for the rest of the population? Health care rationing in Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2000-001, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:147:y:2015:i:c:p:288-295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.