Priority Setting Meets Multiple Streams: A Match to Be Further Examined?; Comment on “Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory”

Document Type: Commentary

Author

Health Services Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract

With demand for health services continuing to grow as populations age and new technologies emerge to meet health needs, healthcare policy-makers are under constant pressure to set priorities, ie, to make choices about the health services that can and cannot be funded within available resources. In a recent paper, Smith et al apply an influential policy studies framework – Kingdon’s multiple streams approach (MSA) – to explore the factors that explain why one health service delivery organization adopted a formal priority setting framework (in the form of programme budgeting and marginal analysis [PBMA]) to assist it in making priority setting decisions. MSA is a theory of agenda-setting, ie, how it is that different issues do or do not reach a decision-making point. In this paper, I reflect on the use of the MSA framework to explore priority setting processes and how the framework might be applied to similar cases in future.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Fiscal Sustainability of Health Systems: Bridging Health and Finance Perspectives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development; 2015.
  2. Donaldson C, Mooney G. Needs assessment, priority setting and contracts for health care: an economic view. British Medical Journal. 1991;303:1529-1530.
  3. Donaldson C, Walker A, Craig N. Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis: A Handbook for Applying Economics in Health Care Purchasing. Glasgow: Scottish Needs Assessment Programme, Scottish Forum for Public Health Medicine; 1995.
  4. Mooney G, Gerard K, Donaldson C, Farrar S. Priority Setting in Purchasing: Some Practical Guidelines (Research Paper No. 6). Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts; 1992.
  5. Posnett J, Street A. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: an approach to priority setting in need of refinement. J Health Ser Res Policy. 1996;1(3):147-153.
  6. Scott A, Donaldson D, Scott S. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: pragmatism and policy. J Health Ser Res Policy. 1999;4(1):1-2.
  7. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Twenty-five years of programme budgeting and marginal analysis in the health sector, 1974–1999. J Health Ser Res Policy. 1999;6:239-248.
  8. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Priority Setting Toolkit: A Guide to the Use of Economics in Health Care Decision Making. London: BMJ Books; 2004.
  9. Tsourapas A, Frew E. Evaluating ‘success’ in programme budgeting and marginal analysis: a literature review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(3):177-183. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009053
  10. Edwards RT, Charles JM, Thomas S, et al. A national Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) of health improvement spending across Wales: disinvestment and reinvestment across the life course. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:837. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-837
  11. Smith N, Mitton C, Dowling L, Hiltz MA, Campbell M, Gujar SA. Introducing new priority setting and resource allocation processes in a Canadian healthcare organization: A case study analysis informed by multiple streams theory. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(1):23-31. Doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.169
  12. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1995.
  13. Sabatier P, Weibel C. Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 2014.
  14. Birkland TA. An Introduction to the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Armonk, New York: M E Sharpe; 2010.
  15. Patten S, Mitton C, Donaldson C. Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(5):1121-1134. Doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.033
  16. Mitton C, Mackenzie J, Cranston L, Teng F. Priority setting in the Provincial Health Services Authority: case study for the 2005/06 planning cycle. Healthcare Policy. 2006;2(1):91-106.
  17. Urquhart B, Mitton C, Peacock S. Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(suppl 1):41-45. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007064
  18. Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, Donaldson C. Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(4):234-242. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008182
  19. Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, Campbell M, Stirling B. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria-based Resource Allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.
  20. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Davidson A, et al. Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change. Health Policy. 2014;117(2):266-274. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.010
  21. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221-248. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
  22. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995.
  23. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bates P, Kryriakidou O. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629.
  24. Sabatier PA. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. J Public Policy. 1986;6(1):21-48.