An Integrated Framework for Assessing the Value of Community-Based Prevention – Institute of Medicine – 2 November 2012

Posted on November 20, 2012. Filed under: Preventive Healthcare, Public Hlth & Hlth Promotion | Tags: , , |

An Integrated Framework for Assessing the Value of Community-Based Prevention – Institute of Medicine – 2 November 2012

Full text

“Over the last century, the major causes of disease and death among Americans have changed, shifting from predominantly communicable diseases spread by germs to chronic ailments. This shift has been accompanied by a deeper understanding about what keeps people healthy or leaves them vulnerable to becoming ill. To get at the heart of the challenges to living a healthy life, we must increasingly emphasize factors that affect today’s causes of morbidity and mortality.

Despite their importance to preventing illness, determining the value of community-based interventions has proven difficult. Preventing illness requires immediate investments with benefits that might not be realized for many years.

This report proposes a framework to assess the value of community-based, non-clinical prevention policies and wellness strategies. The framework represents a valuable step toward realizing the elusive goal of appropriately and comprehensively valuing community-based prevention.”

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on An Integrated Framework for Assessing the Value of Community-Based Prevention – Institute of Medicine – 2 November 2012 )

Looking for value in hard times: How a new approach to priority setting can help improve patient care while making savings – The Health Foundation – August 2012

Posted on September 11, 2012. Filed under: Health Economics, Health Mgmt Policy Planning | Tags: , |

Looking for value in hard times: How a new approach to priority setting can help improve patient care while making savings – The Health Foundation – August 2012

“This report describes a new approach to priority setting called Star (socio-technical allocation of resources). The approach is designed to help commissioners and others pinpoint where they may be able to get additional value from their resources by using them more effectively.

It works by producing simple visual models, developed interactively with stakeholders, so that everyone involved can understand the nature of the choices to be made, and the disadvantages of not changing current practices.

The approach combines value for money analysis with stakeholder engagement. This allows those planning services to determine how resources can be most effectively invested, while the engagement of stakeholders means the decisions are understood and supported by those most affected.

This report shows how, by using the Star approach, NHS Sheffield were able to agee changes to their eating disorder services with clinicians, service users and other stakeholders. The changes they have made are expected to improve both patient care and value for money, with the project showing potential for substantial savings.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Looking for value in hard times: How a new approach to priority setting can help improve patient care while making savings – The Health Foundation – August 2012 )

Better Value: An analysis of the impact of current healthcare system funding and financing models and the value of health and healthcare in Canada – Canadian Health Services Research Foundation – 18 June 2012

Posted on June 27, 2012. Filed under: Health Economics | Tags: , , , , |

Better Value: An analysis of the impact of current healthcare system funding and financing models and the value of health and healthcare in Canada – Canadian Health Services Research Foundation – 18 June 2012

Stuart N. Soroka

“Key Messages

Discussions of healthcare reform must acknowledge the following context: on the one hand, public opinion data suggest that Canadians are increasingly concerned about the future viability of public healthcare; on the other hand, Canadians remain highly supportive of universal healthcare in principle, and they remain largely pleased with their own interactions with the system.

There has been a striking increase in public spending on healthcare over the last 10-15 years. Specifically, controlling for inflation, per capita spending on healthcare in Canada was more than 50% higher in 2010 than in 1996.

This investment in healthcare has positive consequences where public assessments are concerned. Increased healthcare expenditures over the past decade appear to have made a difference: Canadians’ assessments of the current system have improved alongside increased expenditures.

Cross-provincial differences in the relationship between various measures of healthcare policy outcomes provide a valuable source of evidence on “value” in healthcare, and results confirm that value is not simply about spending more. For instance, the relationship between spending on physicians and the number of doctors per capita or wait times, or between hospital spending and the nursing workforce, clearly varies across provinces. In some cases increased spending appears to lead to better health policy outcomes; in other cases the relationship is much less clear.

The relationship between increased spending and improved public assessments also appears to vary across spending domains. Specifically, investments in hospitals, in drugs and in public health are more reliably linked to improved public assessments of the system, while spending in other healthcare domains is not clearly associated with improved public assessments.

Capturing “value” in healthcare is possible, then. But at present the required data – including data on key healthcare indicators and public attitudes on healthcare – are only intermittently available. A stronger commitment to monitor system outcomes should accompany a renewed investment in the Canadian healthcare system.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Better Value: An analysis of the impact of current healthcare system funding and financing models and the value of health and healthcare in Canada – Canadian Health Services Research Foundation – 18 June 2012 )

Dimensions of health care system quality in Finland – Government Institute for Economic Research – 28 May 2012

Posted on June 12, 2012. Filed under: Health Economics, Primary Hlth Care | Tags: , |

Dimensions of health care system quality in Finland – Government Institute for Economic Research – 28 May 2012

“This paper evaluates the determinants of quality – cost relationship in primary health care. We first summarize information from various indicators of care by principal component analysis (PCA), effectively producing quality of care indicators: accessibility, coverage and allocative efficiency. We then regress the costs of care against these indicators to evaluate their relationship. Our results suggest that PCA may be used to produce quality of care indicators. Furthermore, the relationship between the costs and quality of care is complex. Better accessibility is reflected in higher costs, whereas the efficient allocation of resources will bring some cost savings.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Dimensions of health care system quality in Finland – Government Institute for Economic Research – 28 May 2012 )

Measuring social value – UK Department of Health – 6 December 2010

Posted on January 14, 2011. Filed under: Health Economics | Tags: |

Measuring social value – UK DoH – 6 December 2010

“This document outlines the research results from a pilot project undertaken in 2009 on Social Return on Investment (SROI). It also includes information on how SROI can be used to demonstrate the wider value of delivering health and social care services through social enterprise.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Bit Rich: Calculating the real value to society of different professions – New Economics Foundation – 14 December 2009

Posted on December 16, 2009. Filed under: Workforce | Tags: , , , , |

A Bit Rich: Calculating the real value to society of different professions

“This report takes a new approach to looking at the value of work. We go beyond how much different professions are paid to look at what they contribute to society. We use some of the principles and valuation techniques of Social Return on Investment analysis to quantify the social, environmental and economic value that these roles produce – or in some cases undermine.
 
Pay matters. How much you earn can determine your lifestyle, where you can afford to live, and your aspirations and status. But to what extent does what we get paid confer ‘worth’? Beyond a narrow notion of productivity, what impact does our work have on the rest of society, and do the financial rewards we receive correspond to this? Do those that get more contribute more to society?
 
Our report tells the story of six different jobs. We have chosen jobs from across the private and public sectors and deliberately chosen ones that illustrate the problem. Three are low paid – a hospital cleaner, a recycling plant worker and a childcare worker. The others are highly paid – a City banker, an advertising executive and a tax accountant. We examined the contributions they make to society, and found that, in this case, it was the lower paid jobs which involved more valuable work.
 
The report goes on to challenge ten of the most enduring myths surrounding pay and work. People who earn more don’t necessarily work harder than those who earn less. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector. And high salaries don’t necessarily reflect talent.
 
The report offers a series of policy recommendations that would reduce the inequality between different incomes and reconnect salaries with the value of work.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...