@article{Athanasakis2021-qb,
title = {Can We Incorporate Societal Values in Resource Allocation
Decisions Among Disease Categories? An Empirical Approach},
author = {Kostas Athanasakis and Ilias Kyriopoulos and John Kyriopoulos},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-01},
journal = {Value Health Reg Issues},
volume = {25},
pages = {29--36},
address = {United States},
abstract = {OBJECTIVES: Historically, resource allocation decisions in
healthcare are based on univariate approaches, inevitably
overlooking value dimensions that are essential from a societal
welfare maximization perspective. This article aims to present a
wider perspective on decision making that incorporates societal
values when prioritizing future resource allocation among disease
areas. METHODS: Sociotechnical application of multiple-criteria
decision analysis with a set of criteria (value judgments) that
are based on positive as well as normative dimensions of resource
allocation. We use Greece as a case study. Societal value
judgments were sourced via a multidisciplinary panel of experts
who collectively provided criteria weights and scores for each
alternative (16 disease categories, classified according to the
Global Burden of Disease study) against each criterion. An
additive value function provided the total value in priority
preference for each alternative. RESULTS: The criteria that were
deemed relevant to the decision-making process and their
respective relative weights were burden of disease (0.245),
capacity to benefit (0.190), direct cost and projected changes in
the next 5 years (0.160), indirect cost (0.132), intensity of
unmet needs (0.109), incidence of catastrophic expenditure
(0.091), and caring externalities (0.073). The additive value
function revealed that the top 5 priorities in highest total
value scores were neoplasms, circulatory diseases, injuries,
neurologic diseases, and musculoskeletal diseases. CONCLUSIONS:
Incorporation of societal value criteria in resource allocation
decisions can highlight priorities and lead to different sets of
planning decisions than solely demand-driven allocation.},
keywords = {MCDA; disease categories; health prioritization; resource allocation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
OBJECTIVES: Historically, resource allocation decisions in
healthcare are based on univariate approaches, inevitably
overlooking value dimensions that are essential from a societal
welfare maximization perspective. This article aims to present a
wider perspective on decision making that incorporates societal
values when prioritizing future resource allocation among disease
areas. METHODS: Sociotechnical application of multiple-criteria
decision analysis with a set of criteria (value judgments) that
are based on positive as well as normative dimensions of resource
allocation. We use Greece as a case study. Societal value
judgments were sourced via a multidisciplinary panel of experts
who collectively provided criteria weights and scores for each
alternative (16 disease categories, classified according to the
Global Burden of Disease study) against each criterion. An
additive value function provided the total value in priority
preference for each alternative. RESULTS: The criteria that were
deemed relevant to the decision-making process and their
respective relative weights were burden of disease (0.245),
capacity to benefit (0.190), direct cost and projected changes in
the next 5 years (0.160), indirect cost (0.132), intensity of
unmet needs (0.109), incidence of catastrophic expenditure
(0.091), and caring externalities (0.073). The additive value
function revealed that the top 5 priorities in highest total
value scores were neoplasms, circulatory diseases, injuries,
neurologic diseases, and musculoskeletal diseases. CONCLUSIONS:
Incorporation of societal value criteria in resource allocation
decisions can highlight priorities and lead to different sets of
planning decisions than solely demand-driven allocation.