IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v64y2007i4p897-910.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)

Author

Listed:
  • Peacock, Stuart J.
  • Richardson, Jeff R.J.
  • Carter, Rob
  • Edwards, Diana

Abstract

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is becoming an increasingly popular tool in setting health service priorities. This paper presents a novel multi-attribute utility (MAU) approach to setting health service priorities using PBMA. This approach includes identifying the attributes of the MAU function; describing and scaling attributes; quantifying trade-offs between attributes; and combining single conditional utility functions into the MAU function. We illustrate the MAU approach using a PBMA case study in mental health services from the Community Health Sector in metropolitan South Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Peacock, Stuart J. & Richardson, Jeff R.J. & Carter, Rob & Edwards, Diana, 2007. "Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 897-910, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:64:y:2007:i:4:p:897-910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00504-1
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wagstaff, Adam, 1991. "QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 21-41, May.
    2. Stephen Jan, 2000. "Institutional considerations in priority setting: transactions cost perspective on PBMA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 631-641, October.
    3. Dolan, Paul, 1998. "The measurement of individual utility and social welfare," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-52, January.
    4. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, January.
    5. Alban, Anita, 1994. "The role of economic appraisal in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 1647-1652, June.
    6. repec:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Donaldson, Cam & Farrar, Shelley, 1993. "Needs assessment: developing an economic approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 95-108, September.
    8. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    9. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    10. Cohen, David R., 1995. "Messages from Mid Glamorgan: a multi-programme experiment with marginal analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 147-155, August.
    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. Michael E. Otim & Augustine D. Asante & Margaret Kelaher & Ian P. Anderson & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Acceptability of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a tool for routine priority setting in Indigenous health," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 277-295, July.
    2. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    3. Peacock, Stuart & Mitton, Craig & Bate, Angela & McCoy, Bonnie & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(2-3), pages 124-132, October.
    4. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Brayan V. Seixas & François Dionne & Craig Mitton, 2021. "Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    3. Courbage, Christophe & Rey, Béatrice, 2012. "Priority setting in health care and higher order degree change in risk," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 484-489.
    4. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    5. Dolan, Paul & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2001. "Equity in health: the importance of different health streams," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 823-834, September.
    6. Nord, Erik, 2005. "Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 257-263, January.
    7. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    8. Hoel, Michael, 2007. "What should (public) health insurance cover?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 251-262, March.
    9. Bleichrodt, Han & Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2008. "Aversion to health inequalities and priority setting in health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1594-1604, December.
    10. Johannesson, Magnus, 1999. "On aggregating QALYs: a comment on Dolan," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 381-386, June.
    11. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    12. Hoel, Michael, 2009. "Efficient use of health care resources: The interaction between improved health and reduced health related income loss," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2001:9, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    13. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    14. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    15. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2017. "A normative foundation for equity-sensitive health evaluation: The role of relative comparisons of health gains," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(5), pages 1009-1025, October.
    16. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2023. "Entitlements to continued life and the evaluation of population health," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 561-579, September.
    17. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    18. Micaela Pinho & Anabela Botelho, 2018. "Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 503-513, August.
    19. Bleichrodt, Han & Diecidue, Enrico & Quiggin, John, 2004. "Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 157-171, January.
    20. Jan, Stephen, 2003. "A perspective on the analysis of credible commitment and myopia in health sector decision making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 269-278, March.

    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:64:y:2007:i:4:p:897-910. 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.