Alsabah Abdullah M, Haghparast-Bidgoli Hassan, Skordis Jolene
Institute for Global Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK.
Medical Services Authority, Ministry of Defence, Kuwait City 13012, Kuwait.
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 8;9(5):552. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050552.
As attempts are made to allocate health resources more efficiently, understanding the acceptability of these changes is essential. This study aims to compare the priorities of the public with those of health service providers in Kuwait. It also aims to compare the perceptions of both groups regarding key health policies in the country. Members of the general public and a sample of health service providers, including physicians, dentists, nurses, and technicians, were randomly selected to complete a structured, self-administered questionnaire. They were asked to rank health services by their perceived importance, rank preferred sources of additional health funding, and share their perceptions of the current allocation of health resources, including current healthcare spending choices and the adequacy of total resources allocated to healthcare. They were also asked for their perception of the current local policies on sending patients abroad for certain types of treatments and the policy of providing private health insurance for retirees. The response rate was above 75% for both groups. A higher tax on cigarettes was preferred by 73% of service providers as a source of additional funding for healthcare services, while 59% of the general public group chose the same option. When asked about the sufficiency of public sector health funding, 26.5% of the general public thought that resources were sufficient to meet all healthcare needs, compared with 40% of service providers. The belief that the public should be offered more opportunities to influence health resource allocation was held by 56% of the general public and 75% of service providers. More than half of the respondents from both groups believed that the policy on sending patients abroad was expensive, misused, and politically driven. Almost 64% of the general public stated that the provision of private health insurance for retirees was a 'good' policy, while only 34% of service providers agreed with this statement. This study showed similarities and differences between the general public and health service providers' preferences. Both groups showed a preference for treating the young rather than the old. The general public preferred more expensive health services that had immediate effects rather than health promotion activities with delayed benefits and health services for the elderly. These findings suggest that the general public may not accept common allocative efficiency improvements in public health spending unless the challenges in this sector and the gains from reallocation are clearly communicated.
在努力更有效地分配卫生资源时，了解这些变化的可接受性至关重要。本研究旨在比较科威特公众与卫生服务提供者的优先事项。它还旨在比较两组对该国关键卫生政策的看法。随机选择公众成员以及包括医生、牙医、护士和技术人员在内的卫生服务提供者样本，以完成一份结构化的自填问卷。他们被要求根据感知到的重要性对卫生服务进行排序，对额外卫生资金的首选来源进行排序，并分享他们对当前卫生资源分配的看法，包括当前的医疗支出选择以及分配给医疗保健的总资源是否充足。他们还被问及对当前将某些类型患者送往国外治疗的当地政策以及为退休人员提供私人健康保险政策的看法。两组的回复率均高于75%。73%的服务提供者更倾向于提高香烟税作为医疗服务额外资金的来源，而59%的公众群体选择了相同选项。当被问及公共部门卫生资金是否充足时，26.5%的公众认为资源足以满足所有医疗需求，而服务提供者的这一比例为40%。56%的公众和75%的服务提供者认为应该为公众提供更多影响卫生资源分配的机会。两组中超过一半的受访者认为将患者送往国外的政策昂贵、被滥用且受政治驱动。近64%的公众表示为退休人员提供私人健康保险是一项“好”政策，而只有34%的服务提供者同意这一说法。本研究显示了公众与卫生服务提供者偏好之间的异同。两组都表现出更倾向于治疗年轻人而非老年人。公众更喜欢有即时效果的更昂贵的卫生服务，而不是有延迟效益的健康促进活动和针对老年人的卫生服务。这些发现表明，除非明确传达该部门的挑战和重新分配的收益，否则公众可能不会接受公共卫生支出中常见的分配效率提高措施。
