Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis

BackgroundPriority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and treatment. This study compares the values of the country's health policy makers with these three official principles.MethodsIn total 34 policy makers participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative value of six policy criteria. We used multi-variate logistic regression with selection as dependent valuable to derive odds ratios for each criterion. Next, we constructed a composite league table - based on the sum score for the probability of selection - to rank potential interventions in five major disease areas.ResultsThe group considered cost effectiveness, large individual benefits and severity of disease as the most important criteria in decision making. Priority interventions are those related to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. Less attractive interventions rank those related to mental health.ConclusionsNorwegian policy makers' values are in agreement with principles formulated in national health laws. Multi-criteria decision approaches may provide a tool to support explicit allocation decisions.

[1]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making? , 2009, Social science & medicine.

[2]  D. Mortimer,et al.  Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific ? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment , 2008 .

[3]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  Barbara McPake,et al.  How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. , 2009, Health policy and planning.

[5]  R. Baltussen,et al.  Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? , 2007, Health policy and planning.

[6]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[7]  J. Bridges,et al.  Reducing Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival – The Effect of Large‐Scale Screening of the Uninsured , 2011, The breast journal.

[8]  P. Scuffham,et al.  Health system choice , 2010, Applied health economics and health policy.

[9]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[10]  F. Rutten,et al.  The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[11]  R. Baltussen,et al.  Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis , 2006, Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E.

[12]  Stuart Peacock,et al.  Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  Karen Gerard,et al.  Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. , 2009, Health economics.

[15]  Elly Stolk,et al.  Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. , 2006, Health economics.

[16]  Carin A Uyl-de Groot,et al.  Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis-three approaches applied to breast cancer control. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  Martin McKee,et al.  The economic consequences of non-communicable diseases and injuries in the Russian Federation. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. , 2007 .

[18]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[19]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  John-Arne Røttingen,et al.  Supporting tough decisions in Norway: A healthcare system approach , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[21]  Lydia Kapiriri,et al.  Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies , 2009, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.

[22]  References , 1971 .