Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct 14;10:288. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-288.
Remarkable progress has been made over the past 40 years in developing rational, evidence-based mechanisms for the allocation of health resources. Much of this progress has centred on mechanisms for commissioning new medical devices and pharmaceuticals. The attention of fund-managers and policy-makers is only now turning towards development of mechanisms for decommissioning, disinvesting or redeploying resources from currently funded interventions. While Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis would seem well-suited to this purpose, past applications include both successes and failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release.
Drawing on recent successes/failures in achieving disinvestment and resource release via PBMA, this paper identifies four barriers/enablers to disinvestment via PBMA: (i) specification of the budget constraint, (ii) scope of the programme budget, (iii) composition and role of the advisory group, and (iv) incentives for/against contributing to a 'shift list' of options for disinvestment and resource release. A number of modifications to the PBMA process are then proposed with the aim of reorienting PBMA towards disinvestment.
The reoriented model is differentiated by four features: (i) hard budget constraint with budgetary pressure; (ii) programme budgets with broad scope but specific investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals with similar input requirements; (iii) advisory/working groups that include equal representation of sectional interests plus additional members with responsibility for advocating in favour of disinvestment, (iv) 'shift lists' populated and developed prior to 'wish lists' and investment proposals linked to disinvestment proposals within a relatively narrow budget area. While the argument and evidence presented here suggest that the reoriented model will facilitate disinvestment and resource release, this remains an empirical question. Likewise, further research will be required to determine whether or not the re-oriented model sacrifices feasibility and acceptability to obtain its hypothesised greater emphasis on disinvestment.
在过去的 40 年中,在制定合理的、基于证据的卫生资源分配机制方面取得了显著进展。其中大部分进展集中在为新的医疗器械和药品制定招标机制上。现在,资金管理者和政策制定者才开始关注开发用于淘汰、撤资或重新部署现有资金干预措施资源的机制。虽然计划预算编制和边际分析似乎非常适合这一目的,但过去的应用包括在实现撤资和资源释放方面既有成功也有失败。
本文借鉴了通过 PBMA 实现撤资和资源释放的近期成功/失败案例,确定了通过 PBMA 实现撤资的四个障碍/促进因素:(i)预算约束的规定,(ii)方案预算的范围,(iii)咨询小组的组成和作用,以及(iv)对为撤资和资源释放的“转移清单”选项做出贡献的激励。然后提出了对 PBMA 流程的一些修改,旨在使 PBMA 重新面向撤资。
重新定向的模型通过四个特征来区分:(i)具有预算压力的硬预算约束;(ii)具有广泛范围但与撤资提案相关的具体投资提案的方案预算;(iii)包括部门利益平等代表以及负责倡导撤资的额外成员的咨询/工作组;(iv)“转移清单”在“愿望清单”和与撤资提案相关的投资提案之前填充和开发,并在相对较窄的预算范围内进行。虽然这里提出的论点和证据表明,重新定向的模型将促进撤资和资源释放,但这仍然是一个经验问题。同样,需要进一步研究以确定重新定向的模型是否牺牲了可行性和可接受性,以获得其假设的对撤资的更大重视。