IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i9p1653-1663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity

Author

Listed:
  • Mitton, Craig
  • Patten, San
  • Waldner, Howard
  • Donaldson, Cam

Abstract

As resources in health care are scarce, health authorities and other health organizations are charged with determining how best to spend limited resources. While a number of formal approaches to priority setting within health authorities have been used internationally, there has been limited success with such activity, particularly across major service portfolios. This participatory action research project instituted a novel priority setting framework, coined macro-marginal analysis (MMA), in a fully integrated urban health region in Alberta, Canada. The focus of MMA is on identifying areas for service growth and areas for resource release, then determining, based on pre-defined, locally generated criteria, if actual shifts or re-allocation of resources should occur. For fiscal year 2002/03, the Calgary Health Region identified over $40Â M in resource releases ([approximate]3% of the total budget), which were made available for servicing the deficit, and more importantly for our purposes, re-investing in service growth areas. The MMA framework is pragmatic in nature and has the ability to incorporate relevant evidence directly into the decision-making process. This work constitutes a significant advancement in health economics, and responds where previous priority setting approaches have failed in that it allows decision-makers to achieve genuine re-allocation of resources with the aim of improving population health or better meeting other important criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitton, Craig & Patten, San & Waldner, Howard & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1653-1663, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:9:p:1653-1663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00549-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cristina Catallo & Karen Spalding & Roya Haghiri-Vijeh, 2014. "Nursing Professional Organizations," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.
    2. MacDonald, Jo-Anne & Edwards, Nancy & Davies, Barbara & Marck, Patricia & Guernsey, Judith Read, 2012. "Priority setting and policy advocacy by nursing associations: A scoping review and implications using a socio-ecological whole systems lens," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 31-43.
    3. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    4. Goodwin, Elizabeth & Frew, Emma J., 2013. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: Reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 162-168.
    5. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    7. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, R. Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 266-274.
    8. Waldau, Susanne, 2015. "Bottom-up priority setting revised. A second evaluation of an institutional intervention in a Swedish health care organisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(9), pages 1226-1236.
    9. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    10. Hakimeh Mostafavi & Arash Rashidian & Mohammad Arab & Mohammad Mahdavi & Kioomars Ashtarian, 2016. "Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(10), pages 212-212, October.
    11. Nuti, Sabina & Vainieri, Milena & Bonini, Anna, 2010. "Disinvestment for re-allocation: A process to identify priorities in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 137-143, May.
    12. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    13. Patten, San & Mitton, Craig & Donaldson, Cam, 2006. "Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1121-1134, September.
    14. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    15. Stuart J. Peacock & Craig Mitton, 2012. "Priority Setting Methods in Health Services," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 53, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    17. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).

    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:57:y:2003:i:9:p:1653-1663. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.