IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zar/wpaper/dt2006-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists: a community workshop approach

Author

Listed:
  • Angelina L�zaro Alqu�zar

    (Facultad de Derecho, Facultad de Econ�micas. University of Zaragoza, Spain.)

  • Bego�a �lvarez Farizo

    (C.I.T.A.- Unidad de Econom�a. Zaragoza, Spain.)

Abstract

The management of health care systems is facing the problem of long waiting lists in many of the services offered. The use of waiting time as a device for rationing the allocation of medical care does not seem to be a fair and just criterion. The main aim of this paper is the development of a weighting system, based on the patient�s differential characteristics, for prioritising access to the polysomnograph test for sufferers of apnea. To this end, a single Choice Experiment (CE) was applied to a representative sample of the population of Zaragoza (Spain) and a combined approach of CE and Citizens� Juries (CJ) to a group of selected participants. Although CE and CJ have been widely applied to different health economics issues, the joint model proposed for the development of a weighting system is, to the best of our knowledge, new and original. The results of our work suggest an enhanced model which responds to many of the criticisms raised in the relevant literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Angelina L�zaro Alqu�zar & Bego�a �lvarez Farizo, 2006. "Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists: a community workshop approach," Documentos de Trabajo dt2006-08, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    • Handle: RePEc:zar:wpaper:dt2006-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://fecem.unizar.es/sites/fecem/files/archivos/repec/pdf/DT2006-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2005. "Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 703-714, July.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    3. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    4. Jordan Louviere, 2006. "What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 173-188, May.
    5. Stephen A. Marglin, 1963. "The Social Rate of Discount and The Optimal Rate of Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 77(1), pages 95-111.
    6. Carol Propper, 1995. "The Disutility of Time Spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service Waiting Lists," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(4), pages 677-700.
    7. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    8. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Aldred, Jonathan & Jacobs, Michael, 2000. "Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens' jury," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 217-232, August.
    10. Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    3. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    4. Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 465-478.
    5. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    6. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, 2008. "Preferences for ‘life‐saving’ programmes: Small for all or gambling for the prize?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 709-720, June.
    7. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    8. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    9. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    10. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    11. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    12. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in New Zealand Winegrowing Regions: Testing for Benefit Transfer," Review of Applied Economics, Lincoln University, Department of Financial and Business Systems, vol. 6(01-2), pages 1-23, April.
    15. Erik Nord & Rune Johansen, 2015. "Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 313-328, April.
    16. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    17. Smirnov, Oleg A., 2010. "Modeling spatial discrete choice," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 292-298, September.
    18. Worawan Chandoevwit & Nada Wasi, 2019. "Estimating Demand for Long-term Care Insurance in Thailand: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," PIER Discussion Papers 106, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    20. Chai Cheng, T & Vahid, F, 2010. "Demand for hospital care and private health insurance in a mixed publicprivate system: empirical evidence using a simultaneous equation modeling approach," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/25, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:zar:wpaper:dt2006-08. 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: Isabel Acero Fraile (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fezares.html .

    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.