Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 13, Supplement 1 > Pp. 41-45

This Article Full Text 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Urquhart, B. Articles by Peacock, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Project report

Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs

Bonnie Urquhart , Craig Mitton ¹, Stuart Peacock ^2 3

Strategic Initiatives and Project Support, Northern Health Authority, Prince George, British Columbia; ¹ Department of Health Studies, University of British Columbia; ² Centre for Health Economics, British Columbia Cancer Agency; ³ Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Canada

Correspondence to: bonnie.urquhart{at}northernhealth.ca

Objective: To use evidence from research to identify and implement priority setting and resource allocation that incorporates both ethical practices and economic principles.

Method: Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is based on two key economic principles: opportunity cost (i.e. doing one thing instead of another) and the margin (i.e. resource allocation should result in maximum benefit for available resources). An ethical framework for priority setting and resource allocation known as Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) focuses on making sure that resource allocations are based on a fair decision-making process. It includes the following four conditions: publicity; relevance; appeals; and enforcement. More recent literature on the topic suggests that a fifth condition, that of empowerment, should be added to the Framework. The 2007–08 operating budget for Home and Community Care, excluding the residential sector, was developed using PBMA and incorporating the A4R conditions.

Results: Recommendations developed using PBMA were forwarded to the Executive Committee, approved and implemented for the 2007–08 fiscal year operating budget. In addition there were two projects approved for approximately $200,000.

Conclusion: PBMA is an improvement over previous practice. Managers of Home and Community Care are committed to using the process for the 2008–09 fiscal year operating budget and expanding its use to include mental health and addictions services. In addition, managers of public health prevention and promotion services are considering using the process.

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