A framework to support the integration of priority setting in the preparedness, alert, control and evaluation stages of a disease pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic, where the need-resource gap has necessitated decision makers in some contexts to ration access to life-saving interventions, has demonstrated the critical need for systematic and fair priority setting and resource allocation mechanisms. Disease outbreaks are becoming increasingly common and priority setting lessons from previous disease outbreaks could be better harnessed to inform decision making and planning for future disease outbreaks. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how priority setting and resource allocation could, ideally, be integrated into the WHO pandemic planning and preparedness framework and used to inform the COVID-19 pandemic recovery plans and plans for future outbreaks. Priority setting and resource allocation during disease outbreaks tend to evoke a process similar to the 'rule of rescue'. This results in inefficient and unfair resource allocation, negative effects on health and non-health programs and increased health inequities. Integrating priority setting and resource allocation activities throughout the four phases of the WHO emergency preparedness framework could ensure that priority setting during health emergencies is systematic, evidence informed and fair.

Leadership and priority setting: the perspective of hospital CEOs.

The role of leadership in health care priority setting remains largely unexplored. While the management leadership literature has grown rapidly, the growing literature on priority setting in health care has looked in other directions to improve priority setting practices--to health economics and ethical approaches. Consequently, potential for improvement in hospital priority setting practices may be overlooked. A qualitative study involving interviews with 46 Ontario hospital CEOs was done to describe the role of leadership in priority setting through the perspective of hospital leaders. For the first time, we report a framework of leadership domains including vision, alignment, relationships, values and process to facilitate priority setting practices in health services' organizations. We believe this fledgling framework forms the basis for the sharing of good leadership practices for health reform. It also provides a leadership guide for decision makers to improve the quality of their leadership, and in so doing, we believe, the fairness of their priority setting.

What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'. METHODS: 160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used. RESULTS: Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%). CONCLUSIONS: For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition.