Most developed democracies have faced the challenge of priority setting in health care by setting up specialized agencies to take decisions on which medical services to include in public health baskets. Under the influence of Daniels and Sabin’s seminal work on the topic, agencies increasingly aim to fulfil criteria of procedural justice, such as accountability and transparency. We assume, however, that the institutional design of agencies also and necessarily reflects substantial value judgments on the respective weight of distributive principles such as efficiency, need and equality. The public acceptance of prioritization decisions, and eventually of the health care system at large, will ultimately depend not only on considerations of procedural fairness, but also on the congruence between a society’s values and its institutions. We study social values, institutions and decisions in three countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) in order to assess such congruence and formulate expectations on its effects.

This study examined the role of prospective payment systems in the adoption of new medical technologies across different countries. A literature review was conducted to provide background for the study and guide development of a survey instrument. The survey was disseminated to hospital payment systems experts in 15 jurisdictions. Fifty-one surveys were disseminated, with 34 returned. The surveys returned covered 14 of the 15 jurisdictions invited to participate. The majority (71%) of countries update the patient classification system and/or payment tariffs on an annual basis to try to account for new technologies. Use of short-term separate or supplementary payments for new technologies occurs in 79% of countries to ensure adequate funding and facilitate adoption. A minority (43%) of countries use evidence of therapeutic benefit and/or costs to determine or update payment tariffs, although it is somewhat more common in establishing short-term payments. The main barrier to using evidence is uncertain or unavailable clinical evidence. Almost three-fourths of respondents believed diagnosis-related group systems incentivize or deter technology adoption, depending on the particular circumstances. Improvements are needed, such as enhanced strategies for evidence generation and linking evidence of value to payments, national and international collaboration and training to improve existing practice, and flexible timelines for short-term payments. Importantly, additional research is needed to understand how different payment policies impact technology uptake as well as quality of care and costs.

While there is evidence that weight-loss interventions reduce morbidity, indications of their acceptability are limited. Understanding preferences for lifestyle interventions will help policymakers design interventions. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate preferences for lifestyle interventions to reduce adult obesity. Attributes focused on: the components of the programme; weight change; short-term and longer-term health gains; time spent on the intervention and financial costs incurred. Data were collected through a web-based questionnaire, with 504 UK adults responding. Despite evidence that dietary interventions are the most effective way to lose weight, respondents preferred lifestyle interventions involving physical activity. While the evidence suggests that behaviour change support improves effectiveness of interventions, its value to participants was limited. A general preference to maintain current lifestyles, together with the sensitivity of take up to financial costs, suggests financial incentives could be used to help maximise uptake of healthy lifestyle interventions. An important target group for change, men, required more compensation to take up healthier lifestyles. Those of normal weight, who will increase in weight over time if they do not change their lifestyle, required the highest compensation. Policymakers face challenges in inducing people to change their behaviour and adopt healthy lifestyles.

In a 2011 article published in this journal, Baker et al. set out to resolve a nasty dilemma for NICE by reconciling two approaches for determining whether adopting a new intervention would increase total health gains produced from available resources and hence increase system efficiency. In this response we show how the proposed reconciliation, as well as the two approaches on which it is based, fail to inform decision makers about the efficiency of a new intervention. We show how this arises from the misuse of incremental costs and effects of between-intervention comparisons as measures of changes in costs and effects associated with marginal adjustments to the scale of an intervention. Ironically, incremental data represent the choices faced by decision makers and we illustrate a method for determining unambiguously whether a new intervention represents an improvement in efficiency.

This perspective reviews key institutional and organizational patterns in Swedish health care over the last 30 years, probing the roots of several complicated policy questions that concern present-day Swedish decision-makers. It explores in particular the ongoing structural tension between stability, on the one hand, and the necessary levels of innovation and dynamism demanded by the current period of major clinical, technological, economic, social and supranational (EU) change. Where useful, the article compares Swedish developments with those in the other three European Nordic countries as well as other northern European health systems. Sweden’s health sector evolution can provide valuable insight for other countries into the complexity involved in re-thinking tradeoffs between policies that emphasize stability as against those that encourage innovation in health sector governance and provision.