Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb;14(1):107-15.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0346-7. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall

Affiliations

Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall

E J van de Wetering et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to inform decisions regarding the allocation of scarce health care resources. To systematically incorporate societal preferences into these evaluations, quality-adjusted life year gains could be weighted according to some equity principle, the most suitable of which is a matter of frequent debate. While many countries still struggle with equity concerns for priority setting in health care, the Netherlands has reached a broad consensus to use the concept of proportional shortfall. Our study evaluates the concept and its support in the Dutch health care context. We discuss arguments in the Netherlands for using proportional shortfall and difficulties in transitioning from principle to practice. In doing so, we address universal issues leading to a systematic consideration of equity concerns for priority setting in health care. The article thus has relevance to all countries struggling with the formalization of equity concerns for priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cost-effectiveness threshold varying with Proportional Shortfall

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14:197–208. doi: 10.1002/hec.924. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwappach DLB. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):210–222. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00182.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ. Policy Law. 2009;4(02):231–245. doi: 10.1017/S1744133109004903. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J. Health Econ. 1991;10(1):21–41. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(91)90015-F. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schreyögg J, Stargardt T, Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Defining the “Health benefit basket” in nine european countries. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2005;6:2–10. doi: 10.1007/s10198-005-0312-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources