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

Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi, Aimee Maxwell, Gang Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)797-806
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Health Economics
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2018

Keywords

  • Cost utility analysis
  • Economic evaluation
  • Equity-efficiency
  • Fair innings
  • Proportional shortfall
  • Severity

Cite this

@article{ca0bc25307e4475ea011d6a04d232fd5,
title = "Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?",
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.",
keywords = "Cost utility analysis, Economic evaluation, Equity-efficiency, Fair innings, Proportional shortfall, Severity",
author = "Jeff Richardson and Angelo Iezzi and Aimee Maxwell and Gang Chen",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5",
language = "English",
pages = "797--806",
journal = "European Journal of Health Economics",
issn = "1618-7598",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",

}

Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences? / Richardson, Jeff; Iezzi, Angelo; Maxwell, Aimee; Chen, Gang.

In: European Journal of Health Economics, 07.2018, p. 797-806.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

AU - Richardson, Jeff

AU - Iezzi, Angelo

AU - Maxwell, Aimee

AU - Chen, Gang

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cost utility analysis

KW - Economic evaluation

KW - Equity-efficiency

KW - Fair innings

KW - Proportional shortfall

KW - Severity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027355386&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5

DO - 10.1007/s10198-017-0923-5

M3 - Article

SP - 797

EP - 806

JO - European Journal of Health Economics

JF - European Journal of Health Economics

SN - 1618-7598

ER -