Economic effects of priority setting in healthcare: a scoping review of current evidence

Abstract

Objectives Study objective was to map the current literature on the economic effects of priority setting at the system level in healthcare.Design The study was conducted as a scoping review.Data sources Scopus electronic database was searched in June 2023.Eligibility criteria We included peer-reviewed articles published 1 January 2020–1 January 2023. All study designs that contained empirical evidence on the financial effects or opportunity costs of healthcare priority setting were included excluding disease, condition, treatment, or patient group-specific studies.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent researchers screened the articles, and two additional researchers reviewed the full texts and extracted data. We used Joanna Briggs Institute checklists to assess the quality of qualitative, quasi-experimental and economic evaluations and the mixed methods appraisal tool for the mixed method studies. Synthesis was done qualitatively and through descriptive statistics.Results 8869 articles were screened and 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The most common study focus was health technology assessment (7/15). Other contexts were opportunity costs, effects of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and disinvestment initiatives. Priority setting activities analysed in the studies did not achieve cost savings or cost containment (4/15) or have mixed findings at best (8/15). Only five studies found some indication of cost savings, cost containment or increased efficiency. Also, many of the studies consider costs only indirectly or qualitatively.Conclusions All in all, there is very little research addressing the pressing question of whether explicit priority setting and priority-setting methods can support cost containment on a health service system level (regional or national). There is limited evidence of the economic effects of priority setting.