Post on 26-Dec-2015
Decision making from two distinct points of view: patients and society
by
. . .
A part of my talk will consider the paper entitled:Different views on health care rationing the main principles mentioned in the choice and
.
PORTUGAL
18-19 November 2014, Siófok, Hungary
OUTLINE
AN OVERVIEW AT HEALTH SYSTEM
THE PRESENT SCENARIO OF DIABETES IN EUROPE
Different views on health care rationing the main principles mentioned in the choiceMOTIVATIONMETHODOLOGYOBJECTIVESQUESTIONNAIRESAMPLE DESCRIPTIONRESULTSMAIN CONCLUSIONSFUTURE RESEARCH
In the development countries, we notice that the weight of health expenditures grew. Despite the deceleration since 2009, the weight of health expenditure in relation to GDP, on OECD countries, increased from 7,8%, in 2000, to 9,3% in 2011. In this moment, the OECD countries devoted 9,3% of GDP to health.
AN OVERVIEW AT HEALTH SYSTEM
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Net
herla
nds
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Can
ada
Sw
itzer
land
¹
Den
mar
k
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
New
Zea
land
Por
tuga
l
Japa
n ²
Sw
eden
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
OE
CD
34
Spa
in
Nor
way
Ital
y
Gre
ece
Icel
and
¹
Fin
land
Aus
tral
ia ²
Irel
and
Bra
zil ¹
Slo
veni
a
Sou
th A
fric
a ¹
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Hun
gary
Isra
el ¹
Chi
le
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Kor
ea
Pol
and
Luxe
mbo
urg
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
i...
Mex
ico
¹ ²
Tur
key
³
Est
onia
Chi
na ¹
Indi
a ¹
Indo
nesi
a ¹
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
17.7
11.9
11.6
11.3
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.2
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.5
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.4
6.9
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.2
3.9
2.7
Current Capital
% GDP
Health expenditure as a share of GDP, 2011 (or nearest year)
Source: OECD Health Statistics, 2013.
In nearly all OECD countries, the public sector is the main source of health care financing. Around three-quarters of health care spending was publicly financed in 2011. In Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden, the central, regional or local governments finance more than 80% of all health spending. In Hungary 64,5% was the share of public health spending (8,5% by the government and 56,0% by Social Security).
Expenditure on health by type of financing, 2011 (or nearest year)
Source: OECD Health Statistics, 2013.
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Den
mar
k
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Luxe
mbo
urg
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
¹
New
Zea
land
Japa
n
Sw
eden
Icel
and
Est
onia
Ital
y ¹
Aus
tria
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Bel
gium
Fin
land
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Tur
key
OE
CD
34
Pol
and
Can
ada
Aus
tral
ia
Irel
and
¹
Gre
ece
Por
tuga
l
Sw
itzer
land
Hun
gary
Isra
el
Kor
ea
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Mex
ico
¹
Chi
le
1. D
ata
refe
r to
...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8
7385
5 9
8375
9
82
51
11
78
32
4 7 10
60
7 2
68
2735
6
69 68 67
24
64
198
17 11 6
2238
77
12
79 74
8
73
30
69
45
73 70 65
15
67 71
5
4637
65
1
42
1
4656
4546
4325
7
615 13 15 12 10 11 15 17 18 18 18 17
8 12 20 20 2412
21 19 20 2416 20 18
31 29 26 27 25 37
12
4938
62 0
3 5 2 1 514 10
4 214
6 6 113 8 12
3 5 9 3 106
35
417
General Government Social Security Private out-of-pocket Private insurance Other
% o
f cu
rren
t e
xp
en
ditu
re
AN OVERVIEW AT HEALTH SYSTEM
Spending on inpatient care and outpatient care combined accounts for a large proportion of health expenditure in Hungary around 53% of current health expenditure. A further 37% of health spending was allocated to medical goods, 4% on long-term care and the remaining 6% on collective services, such as public health and prevention services and administration.
Current health expenditure by function of health care, 2011 (or nearest year)
Source: OECD Health Statistics, 2013.
Isra
el
Portu
gal
Sweden
United
Sta
tes
¹
Eston
ia
Finlan
d
Czech
Rep
ublic
Japa
n
Greec
e
New Z
ealan
dSpa
in
Poland
Austri
a
OECD27
Luxe
mbo
urg
Denm
ark
Switzer
land
Sloven
ia
Icela
nd
Germ
any
Franc
e
Korea
Norway
Belgium
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Canad
a
Hunga
ry
Nethe
rland
s0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
26 27 2818
31 30 32 32 3731 26
35 3629 27 29 28 32 29 29
3725 30 30
22 20 25 30
48 45 4251
36 36 35 33 2734 38
28 2833 35 33 34 28 31 30
2233 26 26
33 35 28 22
82 8 6
4 10 4 91
15 11 615 12
21 24 209
1912 11 12
2921
015
4
24
1523 16
14 24 17 24 2231
11 21 2617 20
12 1111
2418
20 21 23
1117
3820
37
15
3 4 6 11 5 7 6 5 410 5 4 5 6 5 3 7 7 4 9 9 7 3 6 6 10 6 9
Inpatient care* Outpatient care** Long-term care Medical goods Collective services%
AN OVERVIEW AT HEALTH SYSTEM
We notice that the costs of healthcare increase in a rhythm superior of the wealth creation. This situation can put in case the sustainability of health systems and of the social welfare.
THE PRESENT SCENARIO OF DIABETES IN EUROPE
It costs Europe EUR 100 – 150
billion annually to manage and treat
diabetes.
Diabetes has a large economic burden on society.
The true cost of diabetes is unknown, as productivity loss is also not precisely
calculated. However, there are wide variations between
the regions of Europe on diabetes spending.
Diabetes and other chronic diseases combined are the cause of 86% of
deaths in Europe.Source: Health Consumer Powerhouse, Euro Diabetes Index, 2014.
SDR, diabetes, all ages, per 100.000
Source: WHO HfA database, April 2014.
THE PRESENT SCENARIO OF DIABETES IN EUROPE
Source: Source: Health Consumer Powerhouse, Euro Diabetes Index, 2014.
• Encourage prevention of disease is one of the most effective health policies. In the last data of Euro Diabetes Index 2014, we observe:
THE PRESENT SCENARIO OF DIABETES IN EUROPE
In general, in most countries, we observe: Scarcity of resources. Threats the right of the healthcare.
Need of Rationing or Priority Setting.
MOTIVATION
Level: micro and
macro
Who should be involved: health professionals,
economists and management and
society.
Carried out: discretionary or
based on technical criteria
RATIONING IN
HEALTH
In general, in most countries, we observe: Scarcity of resources. Threats the right of the healthcare. Need of Rationing or Priority Setting.
MOTIVATION
Discussion: How to establish priorities, mainly between patients?
Over the past decades health economists through the concept of opportunity cost developed technical evaluation methods that compares costs and benefits. The formal allocation method, the cost-effectiveness method, commonly referred cost-utility analysis (CUA) which uses a weighting combination of life expectancy and quality of life (QALY) as a measure of benefit in health.
In accordance with CUA health resources should be allocated such that guarantee the maximization of QALY’s for unit of costs. Utilitarianism principle is implicit in this method by assuming that the best distributive scheme is one that maximizes the number of years of life (healthy) for a given budget.
MOTIVATION
When rationing is evaluate in society point of view, these economic evaluation techniques do not have full acceptance.
In the moment of establishing priorities between patients, besides clinical effectiveness, the society value essentially: Personal characteristics of patients; Gravity of health conditions; Reduction inequalities in health.
MOTIVATION
In the literature review different equity considerations such as: the rule of rescue, the fair-inning, substantive equality of opportunities lottery.
Additionally, the preferences regarding equity criteria to establish priorities between patients vary from country to country.
A possible way to overcome this difficulty would be reconciling technical criteria with a political process of priority setting which would include the participation of all social actors → there is no consensus in the public participation in prioritization decisions.
MOTIVATION
Efficiency versus Equity → challenge.
As the budgetary restraints of countries are becoming more demanding and rationing at the micro level assumes proportions of inevitability it becomes relevant to know which distributional criteria are shared by society as a whole.
The study, that I will present, was carried out in Portugal and explore, through quantitative and qualitative analysis, the ethical principles advocated by society in microallocation of the scarce health care resources.
MOTIVATION
The database resulted from the questionnaire which was available for students (180) and health professionals (60).
The questionnaire is composed by two parts:
i) includes a hypothetical scenario used in another work conducted by Cookson and Dolan (1999), which are presented four patients with different characteristics and health conditions;
ii) socio-demographic description of respondents.
METHODOLOGY
The exercise consists in making an ordering four patients in a context of scarce financial resources and in which only one can be treated.
Additionally should be detailed the reasons that led to these choices.
METHODOLOGY
The main objectives of the paper: Compare the results obtained with Cookson and Dolan
(1999); Explore to which of the rationing principles Portuguese
citizens reveal a major support; Explore if Portuguese distributive concerns conform
with international findings; Explore if public ethical principles differ from those of
health professionals.
OBJECTIVES
The differences of our paper with Cookson and Dolan (1999):
we did an anonymous questionnaire that includes a request for justification. Thus, we obtain a larger number of respondents with no opportunity for discussion of choices.
we applied a qualitative and quantitative analysis; highlight the differences in the responses of students
and health professionals.
OBJECTIVES
This is an individual exercise to highlight the dificculty in prioritising the allocation of scarce resourses. You’ve got 6.500€ which will fund one of the scenarios described – what would spend the money and why?
Patient 1: John is 18 years old and suffered a road traffic accident which resulted in severe facial scarring and psychological problems. Plastic surgery would correct the scarring.
Patient 2: Mary is 45 years old, is single, with no children. She was diagnosed with hepatitis B as a result of their long years of drug consumption. Mary does not consume drugs for 5 years. There is a treatment available, which is 75% effective and it will provide years of quality life.
Patient 3: Rosalina is 65 years old and is almost blind. She is waiting 3 years for a surgery to remove cataracts. Her blindness has worsened over time and soon she will no longer be able to live alone. She has no family. The operation will allow she to be independent.
Patient 4: Peter is 8 years and leukemia. The probability of survival is of 50%. But there is a new treatment available that it has been partially tested in a few cases.
QUESTIONNAIRE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Variables PercentageStudents 75%Course: Economics 29% Law 1% Management 19% Psychology 18% Medicine 8%Health professionals 25%Jobs: Doctors 9% Nurses 8% Pharmaceutical 3% Health technicians 5%GenderFemale 56%Male 44%Age[18, 24] 53%[25, 34] 26%[35, 44] 12%> 44 years old 9%Net monthly incomeLess or equal 850€ 7%[851 and 1500€] 35%[1501€ and 2500€] 28%> 2500€ 30%Lives at urban centerYes 57%No 43%Health Status PerceivedVery good 33%Good 57%Fair 10%Poor 1%Very Bad 0%Serious illness (own person and Yes 55%No 45%ReligiousYes 75%No 25%Tobacco consumptionYes 21%No 65%Occasionally 15%Alcohol consumptionYes 9%No 27%Occasionally 64%Political orientationPCP 1%BE 3%PS 14%PSD 29%PP 20%None 34%
Table 1 – Descriptive statistics
Table 2 - Ranking of the four patients given by students and health professionals, Frequencies and Mann-Whitney tests
Notes: * Significant at the p < 0.05 level; ** significant at the p < 0.01; *** significant at the p < 0.001 level.
StudentsHealth
professionals Z-test Students
Health professionals
Z-test StudentsHealth
professionals Z-test Students
Health professionals
Z-testMean rank
João 23 16 59 14 56 16 45 12 3,35Maria 4 4 24 3 51 20 93 32 2,46Rosalina 20 8 69 31 55 15 33 5 2,23Pedro 130 30 25 11 15 8 6 10 2,1Did not indicate 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 -
-1,145
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
-2,835** 1,193 -0,514
RESULTS
Principles Arguments Freq. (%) StudentsH.
Professionals
Lottery / Raffle / Arrival Order
TOTAL = 2Equal Priority 2 (0.8%) 1 1
Need = CapacityBenefit = Efficiency
TOTAL = 37
Maximize gains in years / life quality
5 (2.1%) 2 3
Effective treatment / more recovery
24 (10%) 16 8
Greater economic contribution
8 (3.3%) 8 0
Clinic NecessityTOTAL = 48
More urgency30
(12.5%)32 8
Pain / Suffering 6 (2.5%) 6 0
Imminence of death 12 (5.5%) 5 7
Social NecessityTOTAL = 26
Fragility / Vulnerability
11 (4.6%) 9 2
Threat of independence
15 (6.3) 12 3
Equal HealthTOTAL = 94
Fair-inning94
(39.2%)82 12
Substantive Equal Opportunities
TOTAL = 1
Penalty risk behaviours
1 (0.4%) 1 0
RESULTS
Table 3. Statistics of the more frequent arguments by occupation
Table 4 – The six rationing principles, Mann-Whitney tests
Notes: * Significant at the p < 0.05 level; ** significant at the p < 0.01; *** significant at the p < 0.001 level.
Principles Z-test Whole sample
P1. Priority in the order of arrival -0,818 0,01 P2. Efficiency in health care -0,513 0,61 P3. “Rule of rescue” -1,485 0,63 P4. Social effects -0,534 0,14
P5. "Fair innings" -3,505*** 0,39 P6. Equality of opportunity -0,577 0,00
RESULTS
Table 5 - The determinants of the choice of the patient, Kruskal-Wallis tests
Hypothesis RelationChi-Square
testp-value Result
H1 The choice of the first patient depends of the activity (students versus health professionals) in the labour market.
7,809 0,005 Accepted
H2 The choice of the first patient depends on the order of arrival (P1). 0,046 0,830
Not accepted
H3 The choice of the first patient depends on the need for efficiency in health care (P2).
67,702 0,000 Accepted
H4 The choice of the first patient depends on the “rule of rescue” (P3). 21,963 0,000 Accepted
H5 The choice of the first patient depends of the social effects (P4). 2,058 0,151
Not accepted
H6 The choice of the first patient depends of the “fair innings” (P5). 19,574 0,000 Accepted
H7 The choice of the first patient depends of the equality of opportunity (P6).
0,366 0,545Not
accepted
RESULTS
Rationing of healthcare has revealed a complex and controversial issue especially at the micro level where choices require treating some patients instead of others.
In our results, we verify that the respondents, both students and health professionals, do not refused to establish priorities among patients.
The society is favorable to become involved in these themes and it can open the opportunity for the development of an explicit process to elaborate a systematic and transparent criteria to establish health priorities.
CONCLUSIONS
We also verify that our results converge to rationing principles internationally accepted.
Respondents value the utilitarian criterion of obtaining the maximum benefit in terms of health, but also to provide for the equitable allocation criteria according to the severity of the health state (rule-of-rescue) and age equalization (fair-inning).
Despite this evidence, it should be noted that the population in general seems more receptive to the principle of fair-inning doctors, who show complacent about the effectiveness of treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Research in progress: in order to overcome the limitation of our sample of the study presented here, we use the same hypothetical rationing scenario (developed elsewhere by Cookson e Dolan, 1999) but collected data through an on-line questionnaire allowing widening participation to other social actors and the collection of a larger sample.
Future research: it would be interesting to replicate this same test in other countries in order to explore cultural differences and eventually trace pattern common distributive principles.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Thanks for your attention!!!
Ana Pinto Borges, PhD
e-mail: anapintoborges@hotmail.com
Twitter: @AnaPintoBorges
18-19 November 2014, Siófok, Hungary