Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:31:32.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying health system value dimensions: more than health gain?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2017

Joan Costa-Font ,
Azusa Sato  and
Joan Rovira Forns
Joan Costa-Font*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics (LSE), London, UK
Azusa Sato
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics (LSE), London, UK
Joan Rovira Forns
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
*
*Correspondence to: Joan Costa-Font, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics (LSE), Houghton Street WC2A 2AE, London, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Publicly funded health system reforms increasingly require the evaluation of competing programmes. However, programmes are made of multi-dimensional attributes of value (where value refers to latent expectations of health system improvement). This paper identifies the design, implementation and validation of a methodology to elicit health system values to guide health care priority setting. The exercise suggests that the proposed methodology is suitable for eliciting and validating health system values, and its findings show that pursuing health gain alone does not fully capture the dimensions of health system value. More specifically, we identify a list of health system values (elicited by both potential and actual users) and classify them in terms of process-related values (e.g., shorter waiting lists, greater choice, etc.) and improvements in health system equity in addition to value derived from health gain.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 387 - 400
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aadland, D. and Caplan, A. J. (2006), ‘Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(4): 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, J., Giacomini, M., Lehoux, P. and Gauvin, F. P. (2007), ‘Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice’, Health Policy, 82(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F. P. (2003), ‘Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes’, Social Science & Medicine, 57(2): 239–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Center for Healthcare Decisions (2006), ‘Getting good value: consumers debate costly treatments—is the gain worth the expense? [Internet]. Rancho Cordova (CA): The Center (was Sacramento Healthcare Decisions); [cited 2010 Sep 29]. Available from: http://chcd.org/docs/ggv_report.pdf Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J. and Rovira, J. (2005), ‘Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the “willingness to assign” approach’, Applied Economics, 37(14): 1571–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Font, J., Forns, J. R. and Sato, A. (2015), ‘Participatory health system priority setting: evidence from a budget experiment’, Social Science & Medicine, 146: 182–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa-Font, J., Rovira Forns, J. and Sato, A. (2016), ‘Eliciting health care priorities in developing countries: experimental evidence from Guatemal’, A Health Policy and Planning, 31(1): 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franken, M. and Koolman, X. (2013), ‘Health system goals: a discrete choice experiment to obtain societal valuations’, Health Policy, 112: 28–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handler, A., Issel, M. and Turnock, B. (2001), ‘A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system’, American Journal of Public Health, 91(8): 1235–1239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1993), Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. J. L., Lauer, J., Tandon, A. and Frenk, J. (2000), Overall Health System Achievement for 191 Countries, Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Murray, C. L. and Frenk, J. (2000), ‘Framework for assessing the performance of health systems’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(6): 717–731.Google ScholarPubMed
Olsen, J. A. (1997), ‘Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?’, Health Economics, 6(6): 603–612.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J., Wildman, J. and Robertson, I. K. (2003), ‘A critique of the World Health Organisation’s evaluation of health system performance’, Health Economics, 12: 355–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smithson, J. (2000), ‘Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2): 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, V., Mooney, G., Berry, G. and Tang, K. C. (2003), ‘Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia’, Social Science & Medicine, 56(5): 1001–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Costa-Font supplementary material

Appendix

Download Costa-Font supplementary material(File)
File 18.5 KB