What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches - one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".