title: Deciding how NHS money is spent: a survey of general public and medical views.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine the validity of the Prioritization Scoring Index (PSI) methodology by obtaining the views of our local population and clinicians regarding the criteria and weightings that should be used in deciding how NHS money is spent.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  We have used a PSI in Argyll and Clyde to allocate new money since 1996 and to determine priorities for our 1999/2000-2003/2004 Health Improvement Programme (HIP). Since the criteria and weightings for this methodology were developed subjectively, we sought to validate these by consulting local people and to change our methodology to take account of wider population views.
  
  
  METHODS
  A postal questionnaire was sent to 1969 members of the general public, all 314 general practitioners and all 189 hospital consultants in Argyll and Clyde in March 1999. A reminder was sent after 4 weeks. Questions were asked about general funding and prioritization in the NHS and about specific issues relating to potential criteria for prioritization, including those used in our PSI methodology. Responses were analysed quantitatively in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and qualitatively through examination of the responses to open questions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The response rate was 51% for the general public and 71% for GPs and consultants. Respondents from the general public were broadly representative of the Argyll and Clyde population. The main findings were that: greater importance should be given to care that improves health, quality of life or prevents ill health rather than to cost, or to government and local health board priorities; half of the general public and most clinicians thought there should be a limit on NHS funding; extra money for the NHS should come from the national lottery (general public) or higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (clinicians); doctors should have the greatest influence in deciding how NHS money is spent; a higher priority should not be given to the health-care needs of younger people rather than older people. Our public and clinicians would allocate approximately 50% of the prioritization weighting to direct patient benefits, 25% to the cost of health-care and 25% to strategic health issues.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Consideration of public and clinician views suggests that a revised PSI should place greater weight on benefits to patients and lower weight on the cost of health-care.
authors.affiliation: Argyll and Clyde Health Board, Paisley, UK. ann.lees@rah.scot.nhs.uk
authors.forename: Ann
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lees
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: Sheila N
authors.initials: SN
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: Sara
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: MacDonald
authors.forename: Christine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Campbell
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001294:Attitude to Health; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics*; D005102:Health Expenditures; D006292:Health Priorities / Q000191:economics*; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D011639:Public Opinion; D013222:State Medicine / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom