Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 11, Number 1 > Pp. 32-37

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gibson, J. Articles by Singer, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting?

Jennifer Gibson, Craig Mitton, Douglas Martin, Cam Donaldson, Peter Singer

Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, and Centre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK; Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Objective: Limited resources mean that decision-makers must set priorities among competing opportunities. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is an economic approach that focuses on optimizing benefits with available resources. Accountability for reasonableness (A4R) is an ethics approach that focuses on ensuring fair priority-setting processes. PBMA and A4R have been used separately to provide decision-makers with advice about how to set priorities within limited resources. The goals of this research were to use the A4R framework to evaluate the fairness of using PBMA for priority setting and to assess how A4R might make PBMA fairer.

Methods: Qualitative case studies to describe priority setting using PBMA in the Calgary Health Region (Alberta, Canada) evaluated using A4R as a conceptual framework.

Results: The use of PBMA for priority setting was fairer than previous priority setting because of its emphasis on explicit rational decision-making. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by collecting data related to the decision criteria, by developing a communication plan to engage internal and external stakeholders about priority-setting, and by providing a formal mechanism to review priority-setting decisions and resolve disputes.

Conclusions: There is potential for combining A4R and PBMA in a more comprehensive approach to priority setting, which uses a fair priority-setting process to reach decisions aimed at achieving optimal benefits with available resources.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Donaldson, A. Bate, P. Brambleby, and H. Waldner Moving forward on rationing: an economic view BMJ, October 9, 2008; 337(oct09_1): a1872 - a1872. [Full Text]

				B. Urquhart, C. Mitton, and S. Peacock Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs J Health Serv Res Policy, January 1, 2008; 13(suppl_1): 41 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]