Triage for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Canada: do patients agree on who should come first?

Prioritization and willingness to pay for bariatric surgery: the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

Access to publicly funded bariatric surgery is limited, potential candidates face lengthy waits, and no universally accepted prioritization criteria exist. We examined patients' perspectives regarding prioritization for surgery.

METHODS

We surveyed consecutively recruited patients awaiting bariatric surgery about 9 hypothetical scenarios describing patients waiting for surgery. Respondents were asked to rank the priority of these hypothetical patients on the wait list relative to their own. Scenarios examined variations in age, clinical severity, functional impairment, social dependence and socioeconomic status. Willingness to pay for faster access was assessed using a 5-point ordinal scale and analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The 99 respondents had mean age of 44.7 ± 9.9 years, 76% were women, and the mean body mass index was 47.3 ± SD 7.6. The mean wait for surgery was 34.4 ± 9.4 months. Respondents assigned similar priority to hypothetical patients with characteristics identical to theirs (p = 0.22) and higher priority (greater urgency) to those exhibiting greater clinical severity (p < 0.001) and functional impairment (p = 0.003). Lower priority was assigned to patients at the extremes of age (p = 0.006), on social assistance (p < 0.001) and of high socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Most (85%) respondents disagreed with payment to expedite access, although participants earning more than $80 000/year were less likely to disagree.

CONCLUSION

Most patients waiting for bariatric surgery consider greater clinical severity and functional impairments related to obesity to be important prioritization indicators and disagreed with paying for faster access. These findings may help inform future efforts to develop acceptable prioritization strategies for publicly funded bariatric surgery.

Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

In Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. They are derived from the ethical principles established by the Swedish parliament 1997 but have been used only to a limited extent in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse: 1) GPs', nurses', and patients' prioritising in routine primary care 2) The association between the three key priority setting criteria and the overall priority assigned by the GPs and nurses to individual patients.

METHODS

Paired questionnaires were distributed to all patients and the GPs or nurses they had contact with during a 2-week period at four health centres in Sweden. The staff registered the health conditions or health problem, and the planned intervention. Then they estimated the severity of the health condition, the expected patient benefit, and the cost-effectiveness of the planned intervention. Both the staff and the patients reported their overall prioritisation of the patient. In total, 1851 paired questionnaires were collected.

RESULTS

Compared to the medical staff, the patients assigned relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions. Severity of the health condition was the priority setting criterion that had the strongest association with the overall priority for the staff as a whole, but for the GPs it was cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenge for primary care providers is to balance the patients' demands with medical needs and cost-effectiveness. Transparent priority setting in primary care might contribute to a greater consensus between GPs and nurses on how to use the key priority setting criteria.

Primary care patients' attitudes to priority setting in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

To analyse attitudes to priority setting among patients in Swedish primary healthcare.

DESIGN

A questionnaire was given to patients comprising statements on attitudes towards prioritizing, on the role of politicians and healthcare staff in prioritizing, and on patient satisfaction with the outcome of their contact with primary healthcare (PHC).

SETTINGS

Four healthcare centres in Sweden, chosen through purposive sampling.

PARTICIPANTS

All the patients in contact with the health centres during a two-week period in 2004 (2517 questionnaires, 72% returned).

MAIN OUTCOMES

Patient attitudes to priority setting and satisfaction with the outcome of their contact.

RESULTS

More than 75% of the patients agreed with statements like "Public health services should always provide the best possible care, irrespective of cost". Almost three-quarters of the patients wanted healthcare staff rather than politicians to make decisions on priority setting. Younger patients and males were more positive towards priority setting and they also had a more positive view of the role of politicians. Less than 10% of the patients experienced some kind of economic rationing but the majority of these patients were satisfied with their contact with primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care patient opinions concerning priority setting are a challenge for both politicians and GPs. The fact that males and younger patients are less negative to prioritizing may pave the way for a future dialogue between politicians and the general public.