Allocative efficiency in the use of health resources in Portugal

3Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. This is the first time that a resource allocation technique based on a marginal met need approach has been used in Portugal, and the objective of the study is to attain the improvement of allocative efficiency. Methods. The utilities of health states with and without treatment have been measured using the rating scale technique and a cost-utility analysis has been made. The value resulting from multiplying the avoided days of incapacity by a weight, on a scale from zero to one, has been considered as an indicator of utility corresponding to the difference between a health state with and without treatment. This study has been carried out using the main causes of morbidity from the National Health Survey, 1987, at a regional level. A sample of 150 local authorities was considered to be sufficient. A second objective of this study was to carry out a cost-utility analysis for the main causes of declared morbidity. Results. This analysis has shown that the ratio of cost-utility is highest for hypertension, followed by influenza, asthma and digestive ill-functioning. Pharyngitis-amygdalitis, cold, osteoarthrosis, chronic bronchitis, spondylous arthrosis and diabetes are the illnesses with a more favourable cost-utility ratio which, in a rational resource allocation, should be treated first. Conclusions. So that an increase in the allocative efficiency could be achieved, a transfer of resources between regions is required up to the point at which the use of these resources would be equally efficient. Resources should be transferred from two regions - Interior Centre Region and Littoral Lisbon Region - towards all the other regions, in particular the Interior North Region.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Giraldes, M. D. R. (1999). Allocative efficiency in the use of health resources in Portugal. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21(1), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/21.1.55

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free