Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Government Decisions to De-fund Medical Services Analyzing the Impact of Problem Frames on Resource Allocation Policies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many medical services lack robust evidence of effectiveness and may therefore be considered “unnecessary” care. Proactively withdrawing resources from, or de-funding, such services and redirecting the savings to services that have proven effectiveness would enhance overall health system performance. Despite this, governments have been reluctant to discontinue funding of services once funding is in place. The focus of this study is to understand how the framing of an issue or problem influences government decision-making related to de-funding of medical services. To achieve this, a framework describing how problem frames, or explanatory naratives, influence government policy decisions was developed and applied to actual cases. The two cases selected were the Ontario government’s decisions to de-fund the drug Oxycontin and blood glucose test strips used by patients with diabetes. A qualitative content analysis of public discourse (political debate and media coverage) surrounding these two resource withdrawal examples was conducted and described using the framework. In the framework, government decision-making is a partial reflection of the visibility of the policy issue and complexity of the causal story told within a problem frame. By applying this framework and considering these two key characteristics of problem frames, we can better understand, and possibly predict, the shape and timing of government policy decisions to withdraw resources from medical services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material (Data Transparency)

All data used in the analysis is publically available.

Code Availability (Software Application or Custom Code)

Not applicable.

References

  1. Arah, O. A., Westert, G. P., Hurst, J., & Klazinga, N. S. (2006). A conceptual framework for the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18(1), 5–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elshaug, A. G., Watt, A. M., Mundy, L., & Willis, C. (2012). Appendix to: Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: An Australian study. Medical Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.11083.Appendix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elshaug, A. G., Watt, A. M., Moss, J. R., & Hiller, J. E. (2009). Policy perspectives on the obsolescence of health technologies in Canada. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in health (CADTH), 1–29.

  4. Gallego, G., Haas, M., Hall, J., & Viney, R. (2010). Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation.

  5. Haas, M., Hall, J., Viney, R., & Gallego, G. (2012). Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Australian Health Review : A Publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 36(2), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Giacomini, M., Hurley, J., & Stoddart, G. (2000). The many meanings of deinsuring a health service: the case of in vitro fertilization in Ontario. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00394-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mitton, C., & Donaldson, C. (2002). Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 60(1), 39–58. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11879944

  8. KiKingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

  9. Rein, M., & Schon, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame- reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal fo Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access and policies. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1993.tb01453.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stone, D. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political science quarterly, 104(2), 281–300. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.2307/2151585

  12. Dery, D. (2000). Agenda Setting and Problem Definition. Policy Studies, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/014428700114008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Giacomini, M., Lomas, J., Hurley, J., Bhatia, V., & Goldsmith, L. (1996). The devil in the details: some conclusions about how funding changes translate into financial incentives in the Canadian health system (No. 1996-14). Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA). Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University.

  14. Giacomini, M., Hurley, J., Gold, I., Smith, P., & Abelson, J. (2004). The policy analysis of ‘values talk’: lessons from Canadian health reform. Health Policy, 67(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00100-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mechanic, D. (1997). Muddling through elegantly: finding the proper balance in rationing. Health Affairs, 16(5), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.16.5.83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Health Committee. (2012). Think Piece: Towards a plan for disinvestment. Wellington: National Health Committee.

  17. Pearson, S., & Littlejohns, P. (2007). Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? Journal of health services research & policy, 12(3), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581907781542987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ham, C., & Coulter, A. (2001). Explicit and implicit rationing: taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 6(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819011927422.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Klein, R., Day, P., & Redmayne, S. (1995). Rationing in the NHS: The dance of the seven veils in reverse. British medical bulletin, 51(4), 769–780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Soroka, S. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda setting by media, the public and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/14.3.264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Soroka, S., Penner, E., & Blidook, K. (2009). Constituency Influence in Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(03), 563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423909990059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 170–184). London, UK: SAGE publications Lrd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Massinon, S. (2010). OxyContin cure often worse than ailment; Rising addictions to the powerful painkiller have led to a spike in crime, putting pharmacies on high alert. Calgary: Calgary Herald.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hurley, M. (2010). Pharmacies trying to cope with thefts of narcotics; Supplies reduced, security increased; ‘We can’t do much. Globe and Mail, p. 1.

  25. Star, T. (2010). Ontario launches plan to curb narcotics abuse; Database will track sales and prescribing doctors while boosting programs for oxycodone addicts. Toronto ON: Toronto Star.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sousa, C. (2010). Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act (N0 49) Second Session, 39th Parliament. Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

  27. Miller, N. (2010). Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act (N0 49) Second Session, 39th Parliament.

  28. O’Toole, J. (2010). Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act (N0 49) Second Session, 39th Parliament.

  29. Babbage, M. (2010). Ontario to track overuse of prescription drugs, curb use of OxyContin. Toronto: The Canadian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weeks, C. (2010). First Canadian guidelines issued for opioid painkillers - The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/first-canadian-guidelines-issued-for-opioid-painkillers/article1367228/

  31. Bouzane, B., & Ross, A. (2010). May). Ottawa Citizen: New guidelines seek to curb painkiller abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Elliot, C. (2010, October 26). Hansard Issue: NARCOTICS SAFETY AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 . Retrieved August 31, 2020, from http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/39-2/l072.htm

  33. Ramal, Kahil (2010) Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act. (No. 52). (2012), (52).

  34. Mathews, D. (2010). Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act (N0 13).

  35. Boyle, T. (2015). Ontario quietly cuts funding for diabetics’ blood sugar test strips. Ontario reducing funding for blood-glucose test strips after research shows they have limited beneit for diabetes patients not taking insulin. Toronto Star, 2–3.

  36. Gomes, T., Juurlink, D. N., Shah, B. R., Paterson, J. M., & Mamdani, M. M. (2009). Blood glucose test strip use: patterns, costs and potential cost reduction associated with reduced testing. Toronto (Ont.): Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

  37. The Canadian Press-Broadcast wire. (2015), (February 2012). Medi+Sure® Blood glucose test strip creates significant savings for Ontario’s ODB and healthcare system. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/medisure-blood-glucose-test-strip-creates-significant-savings-for-ontarios-odb-and-healthcare-system-511903751.html

  38. Katikireddi, S. V., Bond, L., & Hilton, S. (2014). Changing policy framing as a deliberate strategy for public health advocacy: A qualitative policy case study of minimum unit pricing of alcohol. Milbank Quarterly, 92(2), 250–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994) The politics of problem definition. (D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb, Eds.). University Press of Kansas, Kansas City

  40. Smith, N., Mitton, C., Davidson, A., & Williams, I. (2014). A politics of priority setting: Ideas, interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation. Public Policy and Administration, 29(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714529141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Giacomini, M. (1999). The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. Journal of health politics, policy and law, 24(4), 715–58. Retrieved from http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/24/4/715.short

  42. Daniels, T., Williams, I., Robinson, S., & Spence, K. (2013). Tackling disinvestment in health care services: The views of resource allocators in the English NHS. Journal of health organization and management, 27(6), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-11-2012-0225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Russell, J., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2014). “Cosmetic boob jobs” or evidence-based breast surgery: an interpretive policy analysis of the rationing of “low value” treatments in the English National Health Service. BMC health services research, 14(1), 413. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Elshaug, A. G., Hiller, J. E., Tunis, S. R., & Moss, J. R. (2007). Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Australia and New Zealand health policy, 4, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-4-23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Trebilcock, M. J., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(82)90012-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Böhm, K., Schmid, A., Götze, R., Landwehr, C., & Rothgang, H. (2013). Five types of OECD healthcare systems: empirical results of a deductive classification. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 113(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, Health System Impact Fellow, Dalhousie University, 1360 Lower Water St., Suite 107, Halifax, NS, B3J3X2, Canada

    Mark Embrett

  2. DeGroote School of Business, Health Policy and Management, McMaster University, DSB-229, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4M4, Canada

    Glen E. Randall

Authors
  1. Mark Embrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glen E. Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors meet the journal’s criteria for authorship and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Embrett.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Embrett, M., Randall, G.E. Understanding Government Decisions to De-fund Medical Services Analyzing the Impact of Problem Frames on Resource Allocation Policies. Health Care Anal 29, 78–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00426-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00426-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation