Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Prioritization in Expanding Health Insurance Benefit Package: in Case of Four Major Serious Diseases

Analytic Hierarchy Process를 이용한 건강보험 급여 우선순위 결정: 4대 중증질환 비급여항목을 중심으로

  • Jeong, Hyoung-Sun (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University College of Health Sciences) ;
  • Cho, Jae-Young (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University Graduate School) ;
  • Ko, Hey-Jin (Korea Medical Holdings Ltd.)
  • 정형선 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 보건행정학과) ;
  • 조재영 (연세대학교 일반대학원 보건행정학과) ;
  • 고혜진 ((주)코리아메디컬홀딩스)
  • Received : 2014.04.10
  • Accepted : 2014.06.23
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Demands are recently rising for the securement of procedural justification of policy decision-making. This study aims to improve the procedure of making a decision to expand health insurance benefit package from the perspective of building a social consensus. Methods: Major priority principles were firstly derived through literature search. Weights for such principles were calculated through an analytic hierarchy process, based upon the survey conducted for the health policy experts. Priority for 11 non-covered services was assessed by applying the weights as above to the results of the questionnaire survey targeted at people including members of related committees or societies. Results: Weights for priority principles were in the order of 'severity/urgency (0.428)', 'cost-effectiveness (0.318)', 'substitutability (0.164),' and 'accountability (0.090)'. What was obtained by applying these weights to the results of the questionnaire survey was considerably in line with what health experts classified those items into 3 groups depending on their own judgement of service necessity (consistent with 9 services out of 11). Conclusion: Results of the study are suggestive as to how far a brief assessment by experts could be utilized in case there are constraints on time and expenses in implementing all the process to secure procedural justification. Various attempts and endeavors need to be made to secure procedural justification that will not mar efficiency of decision-making in the days to come.

Keywords

References

  1. World Health Organization. World health report 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
  2. Jeong HS. Study on estimation of spending to expand NHI benefit package as well as improvement of NHI payment method and price contract system. Seoul: National Assembly Budget Office, Yonsei University; 2013.
  3. Lee KS. Financing and delivering health care. 3rd ed. Seoul: Gyechuk Munwhasa; 2012.
  4. Jo JG, Song HJ. Priority setting in health policy in major developed countries and reform of the benefit scheme in Korea. Proceedings of the 40th Congress of Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2008 May 23; Seoul, Korea. Suwon: Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2008.
  5. Cumming J. Core services and priority-setting: the New Zealand experience. Health Policy 1994;29(1-2):41-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(94)90006-X
  6. Huh S, Shin HS, Kang M, Kim TI, Kim C. Strategies for ensuring appropriate coverage of the national health insurance in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2007.
  7. Kim YI, Lee PS, Cho HJ, Kim SM, Kim Y, Kim CY, et al. A study on fiscal structure of the national health insurance. Seoul: Korea Medical Insurance Corporation, Seoul University; 2000.
  8. Park JY, Han MH, Kim JY, Seo NK. A study on the public perception and satisfaction for the development of national health insurance. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2003.
  9. Jeong HS, Lee KS, Shin UC. Priority-setting in expanding the basic benefit package in Korean health insurance scheme. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation, Yonsei University; 2004.
  10. Choi SJ, Kim JH. Priority setting for expanding health insurance benefit package using analytic hierarchy process. Korean J Health Policy 2006; 16(1):73-94. https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2006.16.1.073
  11. Cho JS. Priority setting for expanding health insurance coverage item: AHP applied (master's thesis). Seoul: Yonsei University; 2005.
  12. Choi KC, Lee HY, Ko MJ, Lee SM. Evaluation on expanding the benefit package and review of the beneficiary in Korean health insurance scheme. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation; 2009.
  13. National Health Insurance Service. Internal report. Seoul: National Health Insurance Service; 2013.
  14. Calltorp J. Priority setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway. Health Policy 1999;50(1-2):1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00061-5
  15. Norheim OF. Reasonable rating international experience of priority setting in health care Norway. Walton Hall: Open University Press; 2003.
  16. Oregon Health Policy and Research. Moving forward with health reform [Internet]. Salem: Oregon Health Policy and Research [cited 2013 Jul 26]. Available from: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/OHPR/Pages/index.aspx.
  17. Saaty TL. An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning. Philadelphia (PA): Energy Management and Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania; 1972.
  18. Saaty TL. Decision making for leaders. New York: RWS Publication; 1995.
  19. Zahedi F. The analytic hierarchy process: a study of the method and its applications. Ingerfaces 1986;16(4):96-108.
  20. Vargas LG. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 1990;48(1):2-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90056-H
  21. Eizo K, Tagao O. Strategic decision making method: AHP. Kwon JH, Yoon MS, translators. Seoul: CR Books; 2012.
  22. Park YS. Decision making using AHP. Seoul: Kyowoo Publication; 2009.
  23. Kwon SM, Oh JH, Kang Ma. Principles and implementation of priority setting for the expansion of health insurance coverage. Seoul: Seoul University; 2010.
  24. Woon HS, Kwon SM, Kwon YJ. Improving priority-setting procedures for NHI benefit package. Korean J Health Policy Admin 2010;20(2):53-68. https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2010.20.2.053
  25. Rawls J, Kelly E. Justice as fairness: a restatement. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2001.
  26. Tobin J. On limiting the domain of inequality. J Law Econ 1970;13(2):263-277. https://doi.org/10.1086/466693
  27. Hunter DJ. The practice of rationing health care in the United Kingdom. In: Breyer F, Kliemt H, Thiele F, editors. Rationing medicine: ethical, legal and practical aspects. Berlin: Springer; 2002.
  28. Ministry of Security and Public Administration. Government 3.0 [Internet]. Seoul: Ministry of Security and Public Administration [cited 2014 Jun 6]. Available from: http://www.gov30.go.kr/gov30/index.do.
  29. Shin SY. Consumer participation in health care quality assessment. Proceedings of the Conference of Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014 May 30; Seoul, Korea. Suwon: Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014.
  30. Noh YS. Stakeholder participation in decision of health insurance assessment criterion: who should decide and why? Proceedings of the Conference of Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014 May 30; Seoul, Korea. Suwon: Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014.
  31. Park MH. Consumer participation in decision process of pharmaceutical benefit package. Proceedings of the Conference of Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014 May 30; Seoul, Korea. Suwon: Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management; 2014.