Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities

Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting

US guidelines recommend that most women older than 65 years cease cervical screening after two consecutive negative cotests (concurrent HPV and cytology tests) in the previous 10 years, with one in the last 5 years. However, this recommendation was based on expert opinion and modeling rather than empirical data on cancer risk. We therefore estimated the 5-year risks of cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or adenocarcinoma in situ [CIN3]) after one, two and three negative cotests among 346,760 women aged 55–64 years undergoing routine cotesting at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2003–2015). Women with a history of excisional treatment or CIN2+ were excluded. No woman with one or more negative cotests was diagnosed with cancer during follow-up. Five-year risks of CIN3 after one, two, and three consecutive negative cotests were 0.034% (95% CI: 0.023%–0.046%), 0.041% (95% CI: 0.007%–0.076%) and 0.016% (95% CI: 0.000%–0.052%), respectively (p trend &lt; 0.001). These risks did not appreciably differ by a positive cotest result prior to the one, two or three negative cotest(s). Since CIN3 risks after one or more negative cotests were significantly below a proposed 0.12% CIN3+ risk threshold for a 5-year screening interval, a longer screening interval in these women is justified. However, the choice of how many negative cotests provide sufficient safety against invasive cancer over a woman's remaining life represents a value judgment based on the harms versus benefits of continued screening. Ideally, this guideline should be informed by longer-term follow-up given that exiting is a long-term decision. </p

Resource allocation and priority setting in health care: a multi-criteria decision analysis problem of value?

A methodological approach is needed for allocating health care resources in an efficient and fair way that gives legitimacy to decisions. Currently, most priority setting approaches tend to focus on single or limited benefit dimensions, even though the value of new health care interventions is multi-dimensional. Explicit elicitation of social value trade-offs is usually not possible and decision-makers often adopt intuitive or heuristic modes for simplification purposes as part of an ad hoc decision-making process which might diminish the reasonableness and credibility of the decisions. In this paper, we suggest that multi-criteria decision analysis could provide a more comprehensive and transparent approach in health care to systematically capture decision-makers’ concerns, compare value trade-offs and elicit their value preferences. We conclude that such methods could inform the development of a decision support system in health care, contributing towards more efficient, rational and legitimate resource allocation decisions