Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Priority setting in practice: participants opinions on vertical and horizontal priority setting for reallocation
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1633-2179
2010 (English)In: Health Policy, ISSN 0168-8510, Vol. 96, no 3, 245-254 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In the Västerbotten County Council in Sweden a priority setting process was undertaken to reallocate existing resources for funding of new methods and activities. Resources were created by limiting low priority services. A procedure for priority setting was constructed and fully tested by engaging the entire organisation. The procedure included priority setting within and between departments and political decision making. Participants' views and experiences were collected as a basis for future improvement of the process. Results indicate that participants appreciated the overall approach and methodology and wished to engage in their improvement. Among the improvement proposals is prolongation of the process in order to improve the knowledge base quality. The procedure for identification of new items for funding also needs to be revised. The priority setting process was considered an overall success because it fulfilled its political goals. Factors considered crucial for success are a wish among managers for an economic strategy that addresses existing internal resource allocation; process management characterized by goal orientation and clear leadership; an elaborate communications strategy integrated early in the process and its management; political unity in support of the procedure, and a strong political commitment throughout the process. Generalizability has already been demonstrated by several health care organisations that performed processes founded on this working model.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 96, no 3, 245-254 p.
Keyword [en]
Priority setting; Procedural development; Health care resource reallocation
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Research subject
Public health
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-36238DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.007ISI: 000280388300009OAI: diva2:352924
Available from: 2010-09-23 Created: 2010-09-23 Last updated: 2015-04-29Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Creating organisational capacity for priority setting in health care: using a bottom-up approach to implement a top-down policy decision
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Creating organisational capacity for priority setting in health care: using a bottom-up approach to implement a top-down policy decision
2010 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

In this thesis, priority setting to the form of the Swedish parliamental decision on priority setting, 1997, is considered an innovation for implementation in health care. The features of this innovation are investigated. The practical implications of implementation are identified by investigating the user organisation, ie, Swedish health care organisations and management systems.

Also, a case of a three-stage process for macro-level priority setting that engaged the entire organisation in the Västerbotten County Council (VCC) is presented. This is done against a background of preceding implementation efforts in the VCC.

Four specific research efforts and papers are presented.

In Paper I, priority setting is operationalised into a multi-dimensional resource allocation task. On that basis, with the help of interviews (1998) and surveys (2002 and 2005) primarily of VCC health care managers, the impact of implementation is measured by prioritisation structures, processes and decisions. Survey response rates were low. Results were used as qualitative data, internally compared, and interpreted as: a) responses reflected mainly “early adopters’” opinions; b) priority setting is an ambiguous concept; c) indicating limited overall implementation; d) reinterpretation of the prioritisation task occurred over time among respondents; and, e) this group took increasingly personal responsibility as stakeholders in priority setting.

Paper II reports a case study intervention of explicit, departmental level priority setting with the aim of improving cost-effectiveness in in vitro fertilization resource use and a rationing of services perceived legitimate by all stakeholders. The intervention combined priority setting and structured quality improvement techniques. Results were: a) improved operational efficiency of diagnostic procedures that allowed resources to be reallocated to treatment; and b) patients were prioritized and treatment resources were rationed based on evidence of treatment effect among subgroups. Evaluation showed that the procedure met stated criteria for legitimacy.

In Paper III, a full-format test of the macro level prioritisation process is described and evaluated by participants with the help of surveys after each completed stage. Participants report the need for improvement of elements in the overall process and of procedural specifics. However, overall there was a strong commitment to the initiative and satisfaction with the process and the resulting decisions.

In Paper IV, procedural specifics of the prioritisation process are evaluated. They are also compared to the Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) framework when used for macro level purposes. Procedures provided intended results such as vertical and horizontal priority setting and a consistent process. However, economic targets were not fully achieved in any of the stages.

Conclusions include that health care management systems are not prepared for priority setting and need profound restructuring and that the prioritisation process described in Papers III and IV was successful because: a) the process satisfied politicians’ directives; b) participants were satisfied with the procedures and perceived the subsequent reallocation decisions as legitimate; and, c) methods resulted in the intended outcome.

Factors suggested as the basis of success include: long-term overall preparations; broad and deep participation; a readiness for change among participants; a stage for horizontal priority setting that added to the quality, feasibility and perceived validity of the knowledge base; a strong process leadership; and politicians determined to protect the process from opportunistic disturbances.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Umeå university, 2010. 107 p.
Umeå University medical dissertations, ISSN 0346-6612 ; 1368
Health care; priority setting; implementation; management systems
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Research subject
Public health
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-36316 (URN)978-91-7459-059-3 (ISBN)
Public defence
2010-10-22, Bergasalen, Byggnad 27, Norrlands universitetssjukhus, Umeå, 13:00 (Swedish)
Available from: 2010-10-01 Created: 2010-09-28 Last updated: 2010-10-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Waldau, SusanneLindholm, Lars
By organisation
Epidemiology and Global Health
In the same journal
Health Policy
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 104 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link