Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2018

01-07-2018 | Original Paper

Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

Authors: Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi, Aimee Maxwell, Gang Chen

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

It has been proposed that equity may be included in the economic evaluation of health services using the ‘proportional shortfall’ (PS)—the proportion of a person’s QALY expectation that they would lose because of an illness. The present paper reports the results of a population survey designed to test whether PS helped to explain people’s preferences for health services and whether it did this better than the absolute shortfall or the equity related variables that PS seeks to replace. Survey respondents were asked to allocate 100 votes between 13 scenarios and a standard scenario. Variation in the allocation of votes was explained by health gain and different combinations of the equity variables. Differences in votes for the comparisons were significantly related to differences in PS but the relationship was weaker than between votes and the age related variables. Cases were identified where PS suggested a priority ordering of services which was strongly rejected by respondents. It is concluded that the use of PS is unlikely to improve the alignment of priorities with public preferences.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Stolk, E.A., van Donselaar, G., Brouwer, W.B., Busschbach, J.: Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy. Pharmacoeconomics. 22, 1097–1107 (2004)CrossRefPubMed Stolk, E.A., van Donselaar, G., Brouwer, W.B., Busschbach, J.: Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy. Pharmacoeconomics. 22, 1097–1107 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference van de Wetering, E.J., Stolk, E.A., van Exel, N.J.A., Brouwer, W.B.: Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ. 14, 107–115 (2013)CrossRefPubMed van de Wetering, E.J., Stolk, E.A., van Exel, N.J.A., Brouwer, W.B.: Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ. 14, 107–115 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Stolk, E.A., Pickee, S.J., Ament, A.H., Busschbach, J.: Equity in healthcare prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value. Health Policy 74, 343–355 (2005)CrossRefPubMed Stolk, E.A., Pickee, S.J., Ament, A.H., Busschbach, J.: Equity in healthcare prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value. Health Policy 74, 343–355 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kusel, J., Beale, R.C., Maruszczak, M.: Implications of the inter-relatedness of the proportional and absolute QALY shortfall measurements for disease burden. In: ISPOR 20th Annual International Meeting Research Abstracts. Value Health. A15, Philadelphia (2015) Kusel, J., Beale, R.C., Maruszczak, M.: Implications of the inter-relatedness of the proportional and absolute QALY shortfall measurements for disease burden. In: ISPOR 20th Annual International Meeting Research Abstracts. Value Health. A15, Philadelphia (2015)
6.
go back to reference Skedgel, C., Regier, D.A.: Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial. Patient. 8, 155–163 (2015)CrossRefPubMed Skedgel, C., Regier, D.A.: Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial. Patient. 8, 155–163 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E.R., Russell, E.M.: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 5, 1–186 (2001) Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E.R., Russell, E.M.: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 5, 1–186 (2001)
8.
go back to reference Carson, R., Louviere, J.: A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ. Resour Econ. 49, 539–559 (2011)CrossRef Carson, R., Louviere, J.: A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ. Resour Econ. 49, 539–559 (2011)CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications, pp. 167–198. Springer, Berlin (2000) Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications, pp. 167–198. Springer, Berlin (2000)
Metadata
Title
Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?
Authors
Jeff Richardson
Angelo Iezzi
Aimee Maxwell
Gang Chen
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2018 Go to the issue