Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on April 26, 2006
Journal of Public Health 2006 28(2):125-132; doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdl006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/2/125    most recent
fdl006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iqbal, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Afza, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iqbal, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Afza, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved.

Rationalizing rationing in health care: experience of two primary care trusts



Zafar Iqbal
Zafar Iqbal, Director of Public Health, Public Health, South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust, Mellor House, Corporation Street, Stafford ST16 3SR, UK


Alison Pryce
Alison Pryce, Public Health Practitioner (Analyst), Public Health, South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust, Mellor House, Corporation Street, Stafford ST16 3SR, UK


Musarrat Afza
Musarrat Afza, Specialist Registrar, Public Health, South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust, Mellor House, Corporation Street, Stafford ST16 3SR, UK

Address correspondence to Zafar Iqbal, E-mail: zafar.iqbal{at}sws-pct.nhs.uk

Background Priority setting, or rationing, in healthcare is an unavoidable consequence of competing demands on the resources available. This is a description of the experience of the two Primary Care Trusts in using an explicit scoring tool to prioritize proposals submitted for new funding within the local health economy.

Methods A Priorities Forum Panel was established, comprising representatives from the local NHS trusts. The Panel reviewed and scored new funding proposals and then ranked them for priority funding.

Results Over 100 proposals were submitted (total cost: approximately £44 million). Sixty-six proposals were scored (total cost: over £26 million). Around £5 million was available for funding, resulting in few of the top-scoring proposals being supported. The proposals which were linked to the implementation of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance were generally given a lower priority compared with those likely to relieve local pressures and facilitate the implementation of specific National Service Framework criteria.

Conclusions Funding of the locally driven priorities took precedence over some of the nationally driven priorities, such as funding of specific NICE guidance. The shortfall in resources did not allow for the funding of a significant number of high-scoring proposals.

Keywords: economics, health services, Priority setting, rationing, NHS funding, NICE funding


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.