A decision support system to solve the problem of health care priority-setting

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide a decision support tool to deal with the problem of seting priorites among patients competing for limited health care resources. Limited resources and unlimited demands prevent health-care services to be provided to all those in need. This became publicity evident with the current Covid-19 pandemic. Although controversial, health care rationing has always existed and is now inevitable. Setting priorities becomes then inevitable. How to define those priorities is a complex and yet irresolvable issue mainly because it involves several and conflicting criteria, translated into efficiency and equity considerations. This is why multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was introduced to health care as an appropriate decision-support framework for solving complex problems.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper proposes the application of two combined approaches – analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and AHP-VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), as decision support tools to rank patients with competing needs in a more effective and equitable way. A rationing scenario involving four patients, differentiated by personal characteristics and health conditions, is used to illustrate, test and compare the applicability of both approaches. After extraction of the relative weights of the prioritization criteria involved in the hypothetical scenario from paired wise comparison methods, TOPSIS and VIKOR priority setting methods were designed.

Findings

Results suggest that patients ranking from both combination approaches are similar and in accordance with the order made directly by health-care professionals. Therefore, the relative weights computed by AHP in combination with TOPSIS and/or VIKOR methods could be used with suitable applicability by health-care decision-makers.

Originality/value

This study is the first attempt to apply a combination of MCDA methods to patients’ prioritization context and the first to cross previous studies to deepen and consolidate the research.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

Public preferences for allocating absolute scarce critical healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

This paper aims to investigate the Portuguese general public views regarding the criteria that should guide critical COVID-19 patients to receive medical devices (ventilators and IUC beds) during the current pandemic context. Based on rationing principles and protocols proposed in ethical and medical literature the authors explore how Portuguese general public evaluates the fairness of five allocation principles: "prognosis", "severity of health condition", "patients age", "instrumental value" (frontline healthcare professionals should be prioritized during the pandemic) and "lottery".

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

An online questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 586 Portuguese citizens. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to define a hierarchy of prioritization criteria and to test for the association between respondents support to them and their socio-demographic and health characteristics.

FINDINGS

Respondents gave top priority to prognosis when faced with absolute scarcity, followed closely by the severity of health condition, patient's age with instrumental value receiving lowest support, on average. However, when the age of the patients was confronted with survival, younger-first principle prevailed over recovery. In a pandemic context, lottery was considered the least fair allocation method. The findings suggest that respondents' opinions are aligned with those of ethicists but are partially in disagreement with the protocol suggested for Portugal.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study represents the first attempt to elicit public attitudes towards distributive criteria during a pandemic and, therefore, in a real context where the perception is that life and death decisions have to be made.

Managing NHS money in Portugal: who decides?

Purpose

The need to reduce health expenditures raises the discussion on rationing possibilities and there is a growing interest in considering society's perspectives. The aim of this paper was to evaluate Portuguese citizens' opinion regarding the imposition of limits on National Health Service (NHS) spending. We also asked who decides how NHS money is spent, in order to obtain the respondents' views on public involvement.

Design/methodology/approach

An online questionnaire was used to collect data. Descriptive and inferential statistics, factorial analysis and a logit model were applied.

Findings

Our results showed that most of the respondents believe citizens have low participation on NHS' financial decisions, confirming the lack of public involvement. Health professionals are more likely to agree with limits on NHS spending, which could indicate potential inefficiencies.

Practical implications

From a health policy perspective, we have concluded that different stakeholders should be involved before deciding how public spending limits should be implemented. Health professionals' perspectives should be considered, taking advantage of their experience.

Originality/value

The main novelty of this paper is the evaluation of whether there should be limits on NHS spending, comparing health professionals and non-health professionals.

Attitudes of health professionals concerning bedside rationing criteria: a survey from Portugal

This paper tests the factorial structure of a questionnaire comprising seven health care rationing criteria (waiting time, ‘rule of rescue’, parenthood of minors, health maximization, youngest first, positive and negative version of social merit) and explores the adherence to them of 254 Portuguese health care professionals, when considered individually and when confronted with two-in-two combinations. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire where respondents faced hypothetical rationing dilemmas comprising one rationing criterion and dichotomous options pairs with two rationing criteria. Confirmatory factor analysis and multinomial logistic regressions were used to validate the structure of the questionnaire and the data. The findings suggest that: (i) the hepta-factorial structure of the questionnaire presented a good fit of the data; and (ii) support for rationing criterion depends on whether they are individually considered or confronted in dichotomous options pairs. When only one criterion distinguishes the patients, healthcare professionals support six criteria (by descending order): waiting time, rule of rescue, health maximization, penalization of patients’ risky behaviors, youngest first and being parent of a young child. When two criteria were confronted, immediate threat of life/health and large expected benefits were the most preferred. Conversely, the positive version of social merit was an unappreciated rationing criterion.