OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World

Anderson, Philippa; Anderson, Pippa

doi:10.1017/S0266462317001696

Journal article 1113 views

OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World

Philippa Anderson, Pippa Anderson

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume: 33, Issue: S1, Pages: 44 - 45

Swansea University Author: Pippa Anderson

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1017/S0266462317001696

Abstract

Program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA) accommodates economic analysis, multi-stakeholder inputs, values, needs and perspectives within one framework in order to determine optimal use of available resources to deliver the highest ‘health value’. Two pilot PBMA projects in two different services w...

Full description

Published in:	International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
ISSN:	0266-4623 1471-6348
Published:	2018
Online Access:	Check full text
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa38314
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

first_indexed	2018-01-26T05:16:33Z
last_indexed	2018-08-15T18:47:25Z
id	cronfa38314
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-08-15T12:42:51.7606629</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>38314</id><entry>2018-01-25</entry><title>OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>128cdedfba6e5e6374fdc85d5c78c428</sid><firstname>Pippa</firstname><surname>Anderson</surname><name>Pippa Anderson</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-01-25</date><deptcode>FGMHL</deptcode><abstract>Program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA) accommodates economic analysis, multi-stakeholder inputs, values, needs and perspectives within one framework in order to determine optimal use of available resources to deliver the highest ‘health value’. Two pilot PBMA projects in two different services were conceived and completed in a Welsh Health Board (HB) as ‘proof of concept’ methodology for robust prioritization decisons and for improving quality of patient care, outcomes and experience. The pilots were essential to enable development of a ‘bespoke’ PBMA process for the HB to implement. The PBMA methods were based on methods and criteria for successful PBMAs reported in the literature. Project teams and stakeholder communities supported the PBMAs which were executed over a 12 -18 month period between 2013–15. Group decision support methods were used to facilitate meetings and decision making. Formal interviews with project team members and informal feedback informed development of the final PBMA framework. Identifying the costs and resources attributable to services and those that could be moved around services was challenging. Evidence of outcomes and ‘health value’ was more easily available. One PBMA pilot recommended that some modest service reorganization and quality improvement could be made within budget but no substantial improvement/decommissioning could be undertaken. The other pilot agreed a disinvestment decision on the basis of evidence and reallocated the resources to a higher value service. The HB commissioning team found the information from the PBMA ‘journey’ as useful as the recommendations. A PBMA framework for the HB was devised. A ‘Prudent PBMA’ framework trimmed back to the critical essentials enables success criteria to be met. PBMA is to be adopted as a ‘way of working’ to operationalize resource reallocation and disinvestment in the ‘real world’ of Welsh healthcare commissioning.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care</journal><volume>33</volume><journalNumber>S1</journalNumber><paginationStart>44</paginationStart><paginationEnd>45</paginationEnd><publisher/><issnPrint>0266-4623</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1471-6348</issnElectronic><keywords>PBMA, resource allocation, prioritisation</keywords><publishedDay>12</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2018</publishedYear><publishedDate>2018-01-12</publishedDate><doi>10.1017/S0266462317001696</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Medicine, Health and Life Science - Faculty</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>FGMHL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-08-15T12:42:51.7606629</lastEdited><Created>2018-01-25T20:22:37.3994726</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Health and Social Care</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Philippa</firstname><surname>Anderson</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Pippa</firstname><surname>Anderson</surname><order>2</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	2018-08-15T12:42:51.7606629 v2 38314 2018-01-25 OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World 128cdedfba6e5e6374fdc85d5c78c428 Pippa Anderson Pippa Anderson true false 2018-01-25 FGMHL Program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA) accommodates economic analysis, multi-stakeholder inputs, values, needs and perspectives within one framework in order to determine optimal use of available resources to deliver the highest ‘health value’. Two pilot PBMA projects in two different services were conceived and completed in a Welsh Health Board (HB) as ‘proof of concept’ methodology for robust prioritization decisons and for improving quality of patient care, outcomes and experience. The pilots were essential to enable development of a ‘bespoke’ PBMA process for the HB to implement. The PBMA methods were based on methods and criteria for successful PBMAs reported in the literature. Project teams and stakeholder communities supported the PBMAs which were executed over a 12 -18 month period between 2013–15. Group decision support methods were used to facilitate meetings and decision making. Formal interviews with project team members and informal feedback informed development of the final PBMA framework. Identifying the costs and resources attributable to services and those that could be moved around services was challenging. Evidence of outcomes and ‘health value’ was more easily available. One PBMA pilot recommended that some modest service reorganization and quality improvement could be made within budget but no substantial improvement/decommissioning could be undertaken. The other pilot agreed a disinvestment decision on the basis of evidence and reallocated the resources to a higher value service. The HB commissioning team found the information from the PBMA ‘journey’ as useful as the recommendations. A PBMA framework for the HB was devised. A ‘Prudent PBMA’ framework trimmed back to the critical essentials enables success criteria to be met. PBMA is to be adopted as a ‘way of working’ to operationalize resource reallocation and disinvestment in the ‘real world’ of Welsh healthcare commissioning. Journal Article International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33 S1 44 45 0266-4623 1471-6348 PBMA, resource allocation, prioritisation 12 1 2018 2018-01-12 10.1017/S0266462317001696 COLLEGE NANME Medicine, Health and Life Science - Faculty COLLEGE CODE FGMHL Swansea University 2018-08-15T12:42:51.7606629 2018-01-25T20:22:37.3994726 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Health and Social Care Philippa Anderson 1 Pippa Anderson 2
title	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
spellingShingle	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World Pippa Anderson
title_short	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
title_full	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
title_fullStr	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
title_full_unstemmed	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
title_sort	OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World
author_id_str_mv	128cdedfba6e5e6374fdc85d5c78c428
author_id_fullname_str_mv	128cdedfba6e5e6374fdc85d5c78c428_***_Pippa Anderson
author	Pippa Anderson
author2	Philippa Anderson Pippa Anderson
format	Journal article
container_title	International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
container_volume	33
container_issue	S1
container_start_page	44
publishDate	2018
institution	Swansea University
issn	0266-4623 1471-6348
doi_str_mv	10.1017/S0266462317001696
college_str	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id	facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id	facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str	School of Health and Social Care{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Health and Social Care
document_store_str	0
active_str	0
description	Program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA) accommodates economic analysis, multi-stakeholder inputs, values, needs and perspectives within one framework in order to determine optimal use of available resources to deliver the highest ‘health value’. Two pilot PBMA projects in two different services were conceived and completed in a Welsh Health Board (HB) as ‘proof of concept’ methodology for robust prioritization decisons and for improving quality of patient care, outcomes and experience. The pilots were essential to enable development of a ‘bespoke’ PBMA process for the HB to implement. The PBMA methods were based on methods and criteria for successful PBMAs reported in the literature. Project teams and stakeholder communities supported the PBMAs which were executed over a 12 -18 month period between 2013–15. Group decision support methods were used to facilitate meetings and decision making. Formal interviews with project team members and informal feedback informed development of the final PBMA framework. Identifying the costs and resources attributable to services and those that could be moved around services was challenging. Evidence of outcomes and ‘health value’ was more easily available. One PBMA pilot recommended that some modest service reorganization and quality improvement could be made within budget but no substantial improvement/decommissioning could be undertaken. The other pilot agreed a disinvestment decision on the basis of evidence and reallocated the resources to a higher value service. The HB commissioning team found the information from the PBMA ‘journey’ as useful as the recommendations. A PBMA framework for the HB was devised. A ‘Prudent PBMA’ framework trimmed back to the critical essentials enables success criteria to be met. PBMA is to be adopted as a ‘way of working’ to operationalize resource reallocation and disinvestment in the ‘real world’ of Welsh healthcare commissioning.
published_date	2018-01-12T03:48:27Z
_version_	1763752340856242176
score	11.012678

OP97 Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis For The Real World

Similar Items