Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources

doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00493-6

Journal of Health Economics

Volume 15, Issue 5, October 1996, Pages 641-653

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00493-6 Get rights and content

Abstract

Previous discussions of methods for the efficient allocation of health care resources subject to a budget constraint have relied on unnecessarily restrictive assumptions. This paper makes use of established optimization techniques to demonstrate that a general mathematical programming framework can accommodate much more complex information regarding returns to scale, partial and complete indivisibility and program interdependence. Methods are also presented for incorporating ethical constraints into the resource allocation process, including explicit identification of the cost of equity.

References (12)

S. Birch et al.
Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory
Journal of Health Economics
(1987)
S. Birch et al.
Cost effectiveness analyses: Do current decision rules lead us where we want to be?
Journal of Health Economics
(1992)
S. Birch et al.
Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein's (mis)application of economics to real world problems
Journal of Health Economics
(1993)
M. Johannesson et al.
On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis
Journal of Health Economics
(1993)
E.B. Keeler et al.
Uses of cost-benefit analysis
Journal of Health Economics
(1987)
M. Weinstein et al.
Critical ratios and efficient allocation
Journal of Public Economics
(1973)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (144)

Social Decision-Making Analysis: A General Approach to Inform Decisions on Resources in the Public Sector
2024, Value in Health
Public expenditure aims to achieve social objectives by improving a range of socially valuable attributes of benefit (arguments in a social welfare function). Public expenditure is typically allocated to public sector budgets, where budget holders are tasked with meeting a subset of social objectives.
Decision makers require an evidence-based assessment of whether a proposed investment is likely to be worthwhile given existing levels of public expenditure. However, others also require some assessment of whether the overall level and allocation of public expenditure are appropriate. This article proposes a more general theoretical framework for economic evaluation that addresses both these questions.
Using a stylized example of the economic evaluation of a new intervention in a simplified UK context, we show that this more general framework can support decisions beyond the approval or rejection of single projects. It shows that broader considerations about the level and allocation of public expenditure are possible and necessary when evaluating specific investments, which requires evidence of the range of benefits offered by marginal changes in different types of public expenditure and normative choices of how the attributes of benefit gained and forgone are valued.
The proposed framework shows how to assess the value of a proposed investment and whether and how the overall level of public expenditure and its allocation across public sector budgets might be changed. It highlights that cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis can be viewed as special cases of this framework, identifying the weakness with each.
Adapting Economic Evaluation Methods to Shifting Global Health Priorities: Assessing the Value of Health System Inputs
2024, Value in Health Regional Issues
We highlight the importance of undertaking value assessments for health system inputs if allocative efficiency is to be achieve with health sector resources, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. However, methodological challenges complicated the application of current economic evaluation techniques to health system input investments.
We undertake a review of the literature to examine how assessments of investments in health system inputs have been considered to date, highlighting several studies that have suggested ways to address the methodological issues. Additionally, we surveyed how empirical economic evaluations of health system inputs have approached these issues. Finally, we highlight the steps required to move toward a comprehensive standardized framework for undertaking economic evaluations to make value assessments for investments in health systems.
Although the methodological challenges have been illustrated, a comprehensive framework for value assessments of health system inputs, guiding the evidence required, does not exist. The applied literature of economic evaluations of health system inputs has largely ignored the issues, likely resulting in inaccurate assessments of cost-effectiveness.
A majority of health sector budgets are spent on health system inputs, facilitating the provision of healthcare interventions. Although economic evaluation methods are a key component in priority setting for healthcare interventions, such methods are less commonly applied to decision making for investments in health system inputs. Given the growing agenda for investments in health systems, a framework will be increasingly required to guide governments and development partners in prioritizing investments in scarce health sector budgets.
Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs
2022, Epidemics
Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity.
We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations.
We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration.
Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.
The diagonal approach: A theoretic framework for the economic evaluation of vertical and horizontal interventions in healthcare
2022, Social Science and Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
The first is to include varying degrees of program implementation as unique interventions within the choice set, and to impose constraints such that only one ‘implementation version’ of each intervention can be selected. The second option is to reformulate the equation as a mixed integer problem (Stinnett and Paltiel, 1996), such that varying degrees of implementation could be allowed for some interventions. The form of the value function is both a strength and a limitation.
The diagonal approach is a health system funding concept wherein vertical approaches targeting specific diseases are combined with horizontal approaches intended to strengthen health systems broadly. This taxonomy can also be used to classify health system interventions as either vertical or horizontal. Previous studies have used mathematical programming to evaluate horizontal interventions, but these models have not allowed concurrent evaluation of different types of horizontal interventions or captured spillovers and intertemporal effects. This paper aims to develop a theoretic framework for the diagonal approach. The framework is articulated through integer programming, maximizing health benefits given constraints by identifying the optimal set of both vertical and horizontal interventions to fund.
The theoretic framework for the diagonal approach is developed by synthesizing and expanding three prior works. The decision problem is synthesised to allow concurrent evaluation of three different types of horizontal interventions, those: (i) improving health system efficiency, (ii) improving capacity, and (iii) investing in new platforms. Linear programs are converted to integer form, relaxing previous assumptions related to constant returns to scale and divisibility of interventions. The framework is expanded to evaluate multiple budget constraints and options for new platforms. A new form for the value function is used to estimate the benefits of intervention combinations, capturing spillovers between vertical and horizontal interventions and dynamic returns to scale. The decision problem is specified inferotemporally, explicitly capturing the impact of the time horizon on the optimal choice set. Dynamic examples are provided to demonstrate the advantages of the diagonal approach over prior frameworks.
This framework extends existing works, enabling simultaneous comparison of various combinations of both vertical and horizontal interventions, capturing spillovers and intertemporal effects. The diagonal approach framework defines decision problems flexibly and realistically, forming the basis for future applied work. Implementation would improve resource allocation and patient health outcomes.
The QALY at 50: One story many voices
2022, Social Science and Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
Concerns over the decision rules were raised by Birch and colleagues (Birch and Gafni, 1992), including the use of QALY league tables. These concerns led to the consideration of other mathematical programming for efficient allocation of resources (Stinnett and Paltiel, 1996). Our co-citation analysis show that the QALY has influenced a range of research areas with an impressive range of methodological topics.
Research on quality adjusted life year (QALY) has been underway for just over 50 years, which seems like a suitable milestone to review its history. The purpose of this study is to provide a historical overview of why the QALY was developed, the key theoretical work undertaken by Torrance, Bush and Fanshel and how two seminal papers shaped its subsequent development.
Moving the QALY forward – there are several historical and reflective exercises. The historical interplay between politics, policy and the challenges facing the National Health Service (NHS) in formulating the QALY concept in the UK has been explored in some depth already, whilst the conceptualization and development of the methodological framework is relatively underexplored. We address this gap by viewing the QALY through the lens of the methodological debates, reflecting upon two key papers underpinning the QALY methodology and how these methods have been developed over time. In part the changes in technology e.g. Google Scholar, and the availability of tools to search for early uses of the QALY allow us to better understand the historical context in which the theoretical development of the QALY has taken place.
Here we celebrate two seminal papers that shaped early QALY development. The first section provides a history of these papers, summaries their contributions and explores the uptake of these papers over time. The second section reviews the methodological debates that have surrounded the QALY over the last 50 years and looks at how the QALY has moved to address these challenges. The third section presents the voices of diverse commentators representing the field of health economics who have contributed to the subsequent development of the QALY in both theoretical and empirical capacities and captures their thoughts about future research and policy use of QALYS.
Selection of healthcare waste disposal firms using a multi-method approach
2021, Journal of Environmental Management
Citation Excerpt :
Ghodsypour and O'Brien (1998) proposed a hybrid decision support model of analytic network process and linear programming for multiple sourcing of material. Similarly, multi-objective goal programming models and mixed integer linear programming models have also been considered in other problems of efficient allocation of healthcare resource (Morton, 2014; Stinnett and Paltiel, 1996), supplier selection and service provider selection (Kumar et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2020). Tirkolaee et al. (2021) proposed a mixed integer linear programming model for sustainable multi-trip location-routing problem while considering multiple time windows, minimizing total risk around disposal sites and total travel time to such sites.
The aim of this study is to propose a hybrid multi criteria decision making model with a linear programming (LP) model to tackle the issue of safe disposal of hazardous and infectious healthcare waste. For this, ten criteria in this study have been identified from literature and field surveys which are modelled using Decision making trial and evaluation (DEMATEL) and Analytic network process (ANP) methods to select the best disposal firm i.e. single sourcing for a hospital. We found that Experience of the firm, Technology for disposal, and Waste collection infrastructure acts as the most vital criteria in selecting a healthcare waste disposal firm for single sourcing. Furthermore, to optimize the total value of disposal and mitigating the risk involved in disposing waste through single sourcing; the LP model considering constraints such as waste lose constraint and waste processing constraint etc. Is solved for multiple sourcing using Lingo 18.0. The solution to LP results into allocation of 500, 500, and 1000 (kg/day) disposables to healthcare waste disposal firms D1, D2 and D3, respectively. The multi-method approach proposed in this study helps the hospital management in selecting economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable healthcare waste disposal firm.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: We thank Magnus Johannesson, Edward Kaplan, Milton Weinstein and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. The authors alone are responsible for any remaining errors. Aaron Stinnett acknowledges financial support from a National Library of Medicine Medical Informatics Training Grant; both authors acknowledge support from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

View full text

NoteMathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources☆

Abstract

Journal of Health Economics

Journal of Health Economics

Journal of Health Economics

Journal of Health Economics

Journal of Health Economics

Journal of Public Economics

Note
Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources☆