Abstract
As part of an ongoing study developing and evaluating the use of programme budgeting (PB) and marginal analysis (MA) within purchasing organizations, conducts a survey of a health authorities’ requirements of a decision‐making tool based on PBMA. PB is a management decision‐making system. It provides a summary of resource use categorized according to the programme or end product to which it applies. This explicit description of current activities focuses attention on competition for resources among programmes and on the effectiveness of resource use within programmes. MA is an economist’s tool to evaluate options for changing the balance of resource use between or within programmes. Finds general support for PBMA techniques, although this waned with the higher functions of the tool. There was consensus that a health authority ought to know fundamentals like, for example, what proportion it spends on tackling coronary heart disease; and a majority view that PB will assist in revealing the key margins for service review
Reference4 articles.
1. 1. Craig, N., Parkin, D. and Gerard, K., “Clearing the fog on the Tyne: programme budgeting in Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority”, Health Policy, Vol. 33, August 1995, pp. 107‐25.
2. 2. Miller, P., Parkin, D., Craig, N., Lewis, D., and Gerard, K., “Less fog on theTyne: programme budgeting in Newcastle and North Tyneside, ” 1996 (forthcoming).
3. 3. West Pennine Health Authority courtesy of Mr Phil Davis. East Sussex Health Authority courtesy of Dr Peter Brambleby.
4. 4. See, for example, discussion in: Mooney, G, Gerard, K, Donaldson, C. and Farrar, S., “Priority setting in purchasing”, NAHAT No. 6, chapter 3, 1992..
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献