Decision makers’ experiences of prioritisation and views about how to finance healthcare costs

Abstract

Access to the published version may require journal subscription. Published with permission from: Elsevier costs. An additional aim was to compare the views of politicians and physicians. Methods:The study was a cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire administered to 700Swedish politicians and physicians. This was analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: A majority of the decision makers (55%) suggested that increasing costs should be financed through higher taxation but more physicians than politicians thought that higher patient fees, private health insurance and a reduction in social expenditure were better alternatives. Prioritisation aroused anxiety; politicians were afraid of displeasing voters while physicians were afraid of making medically incorrect decisions. Conclusions: This study don't answer the question about how to make prioritisation in health care but the result highlights the different ways that the decision makers view the subject and thereby elicit that publicly elected politicians and physicians perhaps not always work with the same goal ahead.There are needs for more research but also more media focus on the subject so the citizens will be aware and take part in the debate.

Priority setting in Swedish health care: Are the politicians ready?

“…Also consistent with prior data [14,16], a larger share of the politicians demonstrated a permissible attitude toward individuals' right to health care irrespective of how modest patients' needs are or irrespective of cost, which is in line with the opinion of the general public, but not at all concordant with the views of the other stakeholders. It could be argued that politicians often develop their rationale based on values where equity and general access to health care are goals of specific interest [12].…”

Health care prioritization in ageing societies: Influence of age, education, health literacy and culture

“…Two levels of prioritization have been described: horizontal or vertical [10]. Horizontal prioritization is carried out at the political level, for example, allocation of resources between non-institutional and hospital care or between different diseases groups.…”

International models of health systems financing

“…Principles include the concept that all persons should receive consideration for health services based on need and capacity for self-advocacy. The provision of health services are held to the principle of cost efficiency [7,24] .…”