The possibility of weighting QALYs differently for different groups of patients has been a source of debate. Most recently, this debate has been extended to the relative value of QALYs at the end of life (EoL). The objective of this study is to provide evidence of societal preferences in relation to this topic. Three cross-sectional surveys were conducted amongst Spanish general population (n = 813). Survey 1 compared increases in life expectancy for EoL patients with health gains from temporary health problems. Survey 2 compared health gains for temporary health problems with quality of life gains at the EoL (palliative care). Survey 3 compared increases in life expectancy with quality of life gains, both for EoL patients. Preferences were elicited using Person Trade-Off (PTO) and Willingness to pay (WTP) techniques presenting two different durations of health benefit (6 and 18 months). Health benefits, measured in QALYs, were held constant in all comparisons. In survey 1 mean WTP was higher for life extending treatments than for temporary health problems and the majority of respondents prioritised life extension over temporary health problems in response to the PTO questions. In survey 2 mean WTP was higher for palliative care than for temporary health problems and 83% prioritized palliative care (for both durations) in the PTO questions. In survey 3 WTP values were higher for palliative care than for life extending treatments and more than 60% prioritized palliative care in the PTO questions. Our results suggest that QALYs gained from EoL treatments have a higher social value than QALYs gained from treatments for temporary health problems. Further, we found that people attach greater weight to improvements in quality of life than to life extension at the end of life.

The objective of this paper is to provide a description and analysis of the main costing and pricing (reimbursement) systems employed by hospitals in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Hospitals cost calculations are mostly based on a full costing approach as opposite to other systems like direct costing or activity based costing. Regional and hospital differences arise on the method used to allocate indirect costs to cost centres and also on the approach used to measure resource consumption. Costs are typically calculated by disaggregating expenditure and allocating it to cost centres, and then to patients and DRGs. Regarding public reimbursement systems, the impression is that unit costs are ignored, except for certain type of high technology processes and treatments.

Our results show that it is feasible to derive a monetary valuation for informal care from the preferences of noncarers.

It is often asserted that public management of healthcare facilities is inefficient. On the basis of that unproven claim, it is argued that privatization schemes are needed. In this article we review the available evidence, in Spain and other countries, on the application of private management mechanisms to publicly funded systems similar to the Spanish national health system. The evidence suggests that private management of healthcare services is not necessarily better than public management, nor vice versa. Ownership-whether public or private-of health care centers does not determine their performance which, on the contrary, depends on other factors, such as the workplace culture or the practice of suitable monitoring by the public payer. Promoting competition among centers (irrespective of the specific legal form of the management arrangements), however, could indeed lead to improvements under some circumstances. Therefore, it is advisable to cease the narrow-minded debate on the superiority of one or other model in order to focus on improving healthcare services management per se. Understanding that good governance affects health policies, the management of health care organizations, and clinical practice is, undoubtedly, an essential requirement but may not necessarily lead to policies that stimulate the solvency of the system.

This paper presents a new scoring algorithm for the SF-6D, one of the most popular preference-based health status measures. Previous SF-6D value sets have a minimum (a floor), which is substantially higher than the lowest value generated by the EQ-5D model. Our algorithm expands the range of SF-6D utility scores in such a way that the floor is significantly lowered. We obtain the wider range because of the use of a lottery equivalent method through which preferences from a representative sample of Spanish general population are elicited.