Mental health care system optimization from a health-economics perspective: where to sow and where to reap?

Health care expenditure (as % of GDP) has been rising in all OECD countries over the last decades. Now, in the context of the economic downturn, there is an even more pressing need to better guarantee the sustainability of health care systems. This requires that policy makers are informed about optimal allocation of budgets. We take the Dutch mental health system in the primary care setting as an example of new ways to approach optimal allocation.

Are the potential benefits of a community-based participatory approach to public health research worth the potential cost?

Much of public health research is conducted in a community setting or is designed to target particular population groups. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining recognition as good practice in studies of this type(Flicker et al 2007). Its merit is based on the inclusion of the community as active participants at all stages of the research process (Goodman 2006). The focus on justice and equity in this approach is seen to contribute to a range of additional potential research benefits including increased relevance and sustainability of interventions arising from the research ( Blumenthal 2004; Wallestein 2006) However, it is widely acknowledged that adoption of a consciously CBPR approach requires additional expertise. time and resources from researchers and from communities (Tanjasiri et al 2002; Massaro & Claiborne 2001; Israel et al 1998). Adoption of CBPR is also limited by existing infrastructures which are supportive of more· traditional models of research. Changes to professional development programs, funding guidelines and criteria. grant review processes and ethics requirements are needed to support increased application of this approach (Israel et al 2001). As all research resources are limited, the potential additional benefits offered by CBPR over and above a more traditional research approach need to be weighed against the potential additional costs involved. Changes to research infrastructure are unlikely to occur until the costs and
benefits of a consciously CBPR approach as compared to a more traditional research approach can be demonstrated.

This is an exploratory paper that summarises the arguments put forward to date in relation to CBPR. A research case study and an evaluation framework are then used for a conceptual analysis of differences in the potential costs and benefits of the two approaches. Firstly, the paper describes the differences between traditional and consciously CBPR approaches. The reported benefits of CBPR are then outlined, followed by a discussion of the potential costs. Finally, the potential costs are compared to the potential benefits of using a CBPR approach, using a case study of existing research.

A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of the Australian Indigenous population

Background : Efficiency and equity are both important policy objectives in resource allocation. The discipline of health economics has traditionally focused on maximising efficiency, however addressing inequities in health also requires consideration. Methods to incorporate equity within economic evaluation techniques range from qualitative judgements to quantitative outcomes-based equity weights. Yet, due to definitional uncertainties and other inherent limitations, no method has been universally adopted to date. This paper proposes an alternative cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of interventions delivered from primary health care services.

Methods : Equity is defined in terms of 'access' to health services, with the vertical equity objective to achieve 'equitable access for unequal need'. Using the Australian Indigenous population as an illustrative case study, the magnitude of the equity weight is constructed using the ratio of the costs of providing specific interventions via Indigenous primary health care services compared with the costs of the same interventions delivered via mainstream services. Applying this weight to the costs of subsequent interventions deflates the costs of provision via Indigenous health services, and thus makes comparisons with mainstream more equitable when applied during economic evaluation.

Results : Based on achieving 'equitable access', existing measures of health inequity are suitable for establishing 'need', however the magnitude of health inequity is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of resources required to redress it. Rather, equitable access may be better measured using appropriate methods of health service delivery for the target group. 'Equity of access' also suggests a focus on the processes of providing equitable health care rather than on outcomes, and therefore supports application of equity weights to the cost side rather than the outcomes side of the economic equation.

Conclusion : Cost-based weights have the potential to provide a pragmatic method of equity weight construction which is both understandable to policy makers and sensitive to the needs of target groups. It could improve the evidence base for resource allocation decisions, and be generalised to other disadvantaged groups who share similar concepts of equity. Development of this decision-making tool represents a potentially important avenue for further health economics research.

Differences in primary health care delivery to Australia's Indigenous population : a template for use in economic evaluations

Background Health economics is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decision-making, however, there is comparatively little evidence relevant to minority groups. In part, this is due to lack of cost and effectiveness data specific to these groups upon which economic evaluations can be based. Consequently, resource allocation decisions often rely on mainstream evidence which may not be representative, resulting in inequitable funding decisions. This paper describes a method to overcome this deficiency for Australia’s Indigenous population. A template has been developed which can adapt mainstream health intervention data to the Indigenous setting.

Methods The ‘Indigenous Health Service Delivery Template’ has been constructed using mixed methods, which include literature review, stakeholder discussions and key informant interviews. The template quantifies the differences in intervention delivery between best practice primary health care for the Indigenous population via Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs), and mainstream general practitioner (GP) practices. Differences in costs and outcomes have been identified, measured and valued. This template can then be used to adapt mainstream health intervention data to allow its economic evaluation as if delivered from an ACCHS.

Results The template indicates that more resources are required in the delivery of health interventions via ACCHSs, due to their comprehensive nature. As a result, the costs of such interventions are greater, however this is accompanied by greater benefits due to improved health service access. In the example case of the polypill intervention, 58% more costs were involved in delivery via ACCHSs, with 50% more benefits. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also altered accordingly.

Conclusions The Indigenous Health Service Delivery Template reveals significant differences in the way health interventions are delivered from ACCHSs compared to mainstream GP practices. It is important that these differences are included in the conduct of economic evaluations to ensure results are relevant to Indigenous Australians. Similar techniques would be generalisable to other disadvantaged minority populations. This will allow resource allocation decision-makers access to economic evidence that more accurately represents the needs and context of disadvantaged groups, which is particularly important if addressing health inequities is a stated goal.

Tantalus and the tyranny of territory : pursuing the dream of parity in rural and metropolitan population health outcomes through primary health care programs

Many health professionals and rural health academics are motivated by the challenge of achieving equitable access to health care in rural communities with the implicit vision that fairer access to services might ultimately lead to more equitable health outcomes for people living in rural and remote settings. The purpose of this paper is to put the issue of rural and urban health outcome parity into perspective and assess recent progress towards achieving the ultimate goal of improving rural health status. I will also explore ways in which rural communities might increase their access to and use of primary health care revenue in the future to improve community health outcomes. While some improvements have been achieved across the rural health system in recent times, the fundamental problem of maintaining infrastructure to service community needs in rural areas remains as daunting as ever. Extensive evidence has now been assembled to show that rural people generally enjoy a much lower standard of health care, health outcomes and life expectancy than their urban cousins. The question underlying all of this evidence, however, is... must this always be so? Is it possible to redress the current inequities between rural and urban populations and could new primary health care initiatives, such as the Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) program, be vehicles for achieving more equitable health care arrangements and health outcomes for people living in rural communities?