Advanced

Decision makers' experiences of prioritisation and views about how to finance healthcare costs.

Werntoft, Elisabet LU and Edberg, Anna-Karin LU (2009) In Health Policy 92. p.259-267
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prioritisation in healthcare is an issue of growing importance due to scarcity of resources. The aims of this study were firstly to describe decision makers' experience of prioritisation and their views concerning willingness to pay and how to finance healthcare costs. An additional aim was to compare the views of politicians and physicians. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire administered to 700 Swedish politicians and physicians. This was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: A majority of the decision makers (55%) suggested that increasing costs should be financed through higher taxation but more physicians than politicians thought that higher patient fees,... (More)
OBJECTIVES: Prioritisation in healthcare is an issue of growing importance due to scarcity of resources. The aims of this study were firstly to describe decision makers' experience of prioritisation and their views concerning willingness to pay and how to finance healthcare costs. An additional aim was to compare the views of politicians and physicians. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire administered to 700 Swedish politicians and physicians. This was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: A majority of the decision makers (55%) suggested that increasing costs should be financed through higher taxation but more physicians than politicians thought that higher patient fees, private health insurance and a reduction in social expenditure were better alternatives. Prioritisation aroused anxiety; politicians were afraid of displeasing voters while physicians were afraid of making medically incorrect decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This study do not answer the question about how to make prioritisation in health care but the result highlights the different ways that the decision makers view the subject and thereby elicit that publicly elected politicians and physicians perhaps not always work with the same goal ahead. There are needs for more research but also more media focus on the subject so the citizens will be aware and take part in the debate. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Health Policy
volume
92
pages
259 - 267
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000270108300020
  • pmid:19487042
  • scopus:68949200199
ISSN
1872-6054
DOI
10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.05.007
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
7bdb66c1-207e-45e8-b8b6-8f58c4001667 (old id 1434654)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487042?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2009-07-02 12:47:28
date last changed
2017-07-30 04:49:48
@article{7bdb66c1-207e-45e8-b8b6-8f58c4001667,
  abstract     = {OBJECTIVES: Prioritisation in healthcare is an issue of growing importance due to scarcity of resources. The aims of this study were firstly to describe decision makers' experience of prioritisation and their views concerning willingness to pay and how to finance healthcare costs. An additional aim was to compare the views of politicians and physicians. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire administered to 700 Swedish politicians and physicians. This was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: A majority of the decision makers (55%) suggested that increasing costs should be financed through higher taxation but more physicians than politicians thought that higher patient fees, private health insurance and a reduction in social expenditure were better alternatives. Prioritisation aroused anxiety; politicians were afraid of displeasing voters while physicians were afraid of making medically incorrect decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This study do not answer the question about how to make prioritisation in health care but the result highlights the different ways that the decision makers view the subject and thereby elicit that publicly elected politicians and physicians perhaps not always work with the same goal ahead. There are needs for more research but also more media focus on the subject so the citizens will be aware and take part in the debate.},
  author       = {Werntoft, Elisabet and Edberg, Anna-Karin},
  issn         = {1872-6054},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {259--267},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Health Policy},
  title        = {Decision makers' experiences of prioritisation and views about how to finance healthcare costs.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.05.007},
  volume       = {92},
  year         = {2009},
}