IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i5d10.1007_s40258-016-0250-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Qualitative Evaluation of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis in a Canadian Pediatric Tertiary Care Institution

Author

Listed:
  • Neale Smith

    (University of British Columbia)

  • Craig Mitton

    (University of British Columbia
    University of British Columbia)

  • Mary-Ann Hiltz

    (Quality and System Performance, IWK Health Centre)

  • Matthew Campbell

    (Quality and System Performance, IWK Health Centre)

  • Laura Dowling

    (Nova Scotia Health Authority)

  • J. Fergall Magee

    (University of Saskatchewan and Saskatoon Health Region)

  • Shashi Ashok Gujar

    (Quality and System Performance, IWK Health Centre
    Dalhousie University)

Abstract

Background Hospitals in Canada are being asked by governments to improve efficiency and do more with fewer resources. Healthcare decision makers are thus driven to find better ways to manage budgets and deliver on their mission. Formal processes of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) are one means to this end. Objective This paper reports an evaluation of one such approach, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), as applied at a children and women’s tertiary care facility in Nova Scotia, Canada. A brief evaluation conducted immediately after the conclusion of the PBMA process was supplemented with a larger retrospective evaluation. Methods The retrospective evaluation included 26 face-to-face individual interviews with senior and middle managers who took part in PBMA. Interview transcripts were analyzed against a template consisting of 19 elements of structure, process, attitudes, and outcomes associated with high performance in PSRA. Results Respondents had a good experience with the implementation of PBMA, and considered it an improvement over past practice. Success was attributed to effective leadership, and substantial efforts to engage staff members. Understanding of economic and ethical principles of decision making was reportedly increased. Areas for improvement included ensuring that everyone participated in good faith, better communication of final results, and stronger follow-through to determine if anticipated changes and benefits in fact occurred. Conclusion The evaluation framework employed here proved useful in assessing the quality of this resource allocation exercise. The results are directly useful to local decision makers, and the identified strengths and weaknesses are broadly consistent with those reported in studies of other organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Mary-Ann Hiltz & Matthew Campbell & Laura Dowling & J. Fergall Magee & Shashi Ashok Gujar, 2016. "A Qualitative Evaluation of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis in a Canadian Pediatric Tertiary Care Institution," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 559-568, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0250-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0250-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0250-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0250-5?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. Martin, Douglas K. & Giacomini, Mita & Singer, Peter A., 2002. "Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 279-290, September.
    2. Mitton, Craig R. & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 335-348, June.
    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. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    2. 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).
    3. Hofmann, Bjørn, 2020. "Biases distorting priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 52-60.

    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. Hipgrave, David B. & Alderman, Katarzyna Bolsewicz & Anderson, Ian & Soto, Eliana Jimenez, 2014. "Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 190-200.
    2. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    3. Robbins, Geraldine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2015. "From secrecy to transparency: Accounting and the transition from religious charity to publicly-owned hospital," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 19-32.
    4. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2003. "Drug reimbursement in Finland--a case of explicit prioritising in special categories," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 169-177, November.
    5. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    6. Salome A. Bukachi & Washington Onyango-Ouma & Jared Maaka Siso & Isaac K. Nyamongo & Joseph K. Mutai & Anna Karin Hurtig & Øystein Evjen Olsen & Jens Byskov, 2014. "Healthcare priority setting in Kenya: a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 342-361, October.
    7. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    8. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    9. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole F. & Martin, Douglas K., 2009. "Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 766-773, February.
    10. Brian Reddy & Praveen Thokala & Alison Iliff & Kerry Warhurst & Helen Chambers & Lynsey Bowker & Stephen J. Walters & Alejandra Duenas & Michael P. Kelly, 2016. "Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 161-181, November.
    11. Jinxia Zhu & Qian Xu & Yi Pan & Lefeng Qiu & Yi Peng & Haijun Bao, 2018. "Land-Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) Conflicts: A Perspective of Spatial Injustice of Urban Public Resources Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. 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).
    13. Axel C. Mühlbacher & John F. P. Bridges & Susanne Bethge & Ch.-Markos Dintsios & Anja Schwalm & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Matthias Nübling, 2017. "Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 155-165, March.
    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. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla & Daar, Abdallah S. & Martin, Douglas K., 2012. "Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: An international perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 226-235.
    16. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    17. Youngha Song & Junhewk Kim, 2021. "Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-10, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Smith, Neale & Mitton, Craig & Hall, William & Bryan, Stirling & Donaldson, Cam & Peacock, Stuart & Gibson, Jennifer L. & Urquhart, Bonnie, 2016. "High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 185-192.
    20. Reeleder, David & Goel, Vivek & Singer, Peter A. & Martin, Douglas K., 2006. "Leadership and priority setting: The perspective of hospital CEOs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 24-34, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0250-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.