Measuring Public Preferences for Changes in the Health Insurance Benefit Package Policies in Iran: A Survey Approach
Background: This study aimed to identify the public preference in health services, the principles that Iranian people consider important, and the aspects of trade-offs between different values in resource allocation practices.
Methods: This quantitative study was conducted to investigate public preferences on Health Insurance Benefit Package (HIBP) in 2017. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection, including the preferences of the people who live in Tehran, were above 18 year, and were covered by basic insurance for the HIBP contents and premium. The sample size was calculated 430 subjects and SPSS Statistics was used for data analyzing.
Results: 81.6% of the sample population agreed with government allocating more money to the health sector compared to other sectors and organizations and 55% were willing to pay higher premiums for expanding the HIBP coverage. The highest and lowest score regarding prioritization of budget allocation between health services was related to hospitalization services (28.6%) and rehabilitation services (1.6%), respectively. The first priority of respondents regarding health care and life cycle, was "prevention in newborns" (15.9%), the second priority was "prevention in children" (14.6%), the third priority was "prevention in adults" (9.5%), and the last priority was "short-term care in newborns" (0.9%).
Conclusion: Iranian people believe that not only the principle of health maximization but also equal opportunities to access health care and a fair allocation of resources should be considered by authorities for effective health insurance policymaking. In this case, given the scarcity of resources, setting priorities for alternative resources is inevitable.
2. Victoor A, Hansen J, van den Akker-van ME et al (2014). Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan. Health Policy, 117:257-265.
3. Mitton C, Donaldson C (2004). Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2:3.
4. Kapiriri L, Martin DK (2006). Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital. BMC Health Services Research, 6:127.
5. Tantivess S, Pérez Velasco R, Yothasamut J et al (2012). Efficiency or equity: value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand. J Health Organ Manag, 26:331-342.
6. Ettelt S, Nolte E, Thomson S, Mays N (2007). The systematic use of cost-effectiveness criteria to inform reviews of publicly funded benefits packages. Report for the Department of Health, London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, février.
7. Martín-Fernández J, del Cura-González MI, Rodríguez-Martínez G et al (2013). Economic valuation of health care services in public health systems: a study about Willingness to Pay (WTP) for nursing consultations. PLoS One, 8:e62840.
8. Boivin A, Currie K, Fervers B, Gracia J et al (2010). Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Qual Saf Health Care. 19(5):e22.
9. de Bekker‐Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K (2012). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health economics, 21:145-172.
10. Brennan PF, Strombom I (1998). Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 5:257-262.
11. Dirksen CD, Utens CM, Joore MA et al (2013). Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study. Implement Sci, 8:64.
12. Lawshe CH (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel psychology, 28:563-575.
13. Ibrahimipour H, Maleki M-R, Brown R et al (2011). A qualitative study of the difficulties in reaching sustainable universal health insurance coverage in Iran. Health Policy Plan, 26:485-495.
14. Karimi S, Javadi M, Jafarzadeh F (2012). Economic burden and costs of chronic diseases in Iran and the world. Director General, 8:996.
15. Wild V, Carina F, Frouzakis R et al (2015). Assessing the impact of DRGs on patient care and professional practice in Switzerland (IDoC)–a potential model for monitoring and evaluating healthcare reform. Swiss Med Wkly, 145:w14034.
16. Luyten J, Kessels R, Goos P, Beutels P (2015). Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health, 18:224-233.
17. Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C (2011). Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter? J Health Serv Res Policy, 16:81-89.
18. Crawshaw R, Garland M, Hines B, Anderson B (1990). Developing principles for prudent health care allocation. The continuing Oregon experiment. West J Med, 152:441-6.
19. Bowling A (1996). Health care rationing: the public's debate. BMJ, 312:670-674.
|Issue||Vol 49 No 5 (2020)|
|Public preferences; Benefit package Insurance; Survey; Iran|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|