London School of Economics and Political Science.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013 Dec;38(6):1149-71. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2373175. Epub 2013 Aug 23.
For health care, economists have developed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a "rational," analytic tool to set priorities. Attempts to use CEA to decide how to cut expenditures, however, have been met with stakeholders' resistance. This article presents an illustrative case study of the application of an approach explicitly designed to engage stakeholders with conflicting objectives in confronting tightening budgets. The outcome of this process, which engaged a group of stakeholders including patients, caregivers, clinicians, and managers, was a strategy that reconfigured services to produce more health gain at reduced total cost. I argue that the key factors that led to overcoming resistance to change were (1) the collective character of the deliberations; (2) the analysis of the whole pathway; (3) the presence of patients; and (4) the development of a model based on CEA principles, which provided a credible rationale for difficult decisions.
对于医疗保健,经济学家开发了成本效益分析(CEA)作为一种“理性”的分析工具来确定优先事项。然而,试图使用 CEA 来决定如何削减支出却遭到了利益相关者的抵制。本文介绍了一个应用方法的说明性案例研究,该方法旨在让具有冲突目标的利益相关者参与进来,共同应对紧缩预算的局面。这一过程涉及了一组利益相关者,包括患者、护理人员、临床医生和管理人员,最终制定出了一项战略,重新配置服务,以在降低总成本的同时获得更多的健康收益。我认为,克服变革阻力的关键因素是:(1)审议的集体性质;(2)对整个路径的分析;(3)患者的存在;(4)基于 CEA 原则开发的模型,为艰难的决策提供了可信的理由。