Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Institute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Geneva University Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland

2 Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

3 Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Abstract

Background
As universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy.

 
Methods
We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex healthcare allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted CHAT exercises in twelve Swiss cities with recruitment from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, taking into account differences in language and culture.

 
Results
Compared to existing coverage, a majority of 175 participants accepted greater general practice gatekeeping (94%), exclusion of invasive life-sustaining measures in dying patients (80%), longer waiting times for non-urgent episodic care (78%), greater adherence to cost-effectiveness guidelines in chronic care (66%), and lower premium subsidies (51%). Most initially chose greater coverage for dental care (59%), quality of life (57%), and long-term care (90%). During group deliberations, participants increased coverage for out-of-pocket costs (58%) and mental health to current levels (41%) and beyond current levels for rehabilitation (50%), and decreased coverage for quality of life to current levels (74%). Following group deliberation, they tended to change their views back to below current coverage for help with out-of-pocket costs, and back to current levels for rehabilitation. Most participants accepted the plan as appropriate and fair. A significant number would have added nothing.

 
Conclusion
Swiss participants who have engaged in a priority setting exercise accept complex resource allocation tradeoffs in healthcare coverage. Moreover, in the context of a well-funded healthcare system with universal coverage centered on individual choice, at least some of our participants believed a fully sufficient threshold of health insurance coverage was achieved.

Highlights

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

 

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • Healthcare Priority-Setting: Chat-Ting Is Not Enough; Comment on “Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage”

            Abstract | PDF

  • Tradeoff Negotiation: The Importance of Getting in the Game; Comment on “Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage”

            Abstract | PDF

 

Authors' Response to the Commentaries

  • The Value of Engaging the Public in CHATing About Healthcare Priorities: A Response to Recent Commentaries

            Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

 

"Watch the Video Summary"

References

  1. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301.
  2. Emanuel EJ. Choice and representation in health care. Med Care Res Rev. 1999;56 Suppl 1:113-140. doi:10.1177/1077558799056001s07
  3. Daniels N. Just Health Care. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
  4. Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
  5. Fleck LM. Just Caring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
  6. Biller-Andorno N, Zeltner T. Individual Responsibility and Community Solidarity--The Swiss Health Care System. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2193-2197. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1508256
  7. Danis M, Binnendijk E, Ost A, Vellakkal S, Koren R, Dror DM. Eliciting Health Insurance Benefit Choices of Low Income Groups. Econ Polit Wkly. 2007:42(32):3331-3339.
  8. Lucas T, Goold SD. The malleability of belief in a just word: evidence from a health resource allocation exercise. Psychol J. 2008;5(2):92-104.
  9. Danis M, Ginsburg M, Goold S. Experience in the United States with public deliberation about health insurance benefits using the small group decision exercise, CHAT. J Ambul Care Manage. 2010;33(3):205-214. doi:10.1097/JAC.0b013e3181e56340
  10. Goold SD, Biddle AK, Klipp G, Hall CN, Danis M. Choosing Healthplans All Together: a deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30(4):563-601.
  11. Kermisch C, Depaus C. The strength of ethical matrixes as a tool for normative analysis related to technological choices: the case of geological disposal for radioactive waste. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(1):29-48. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9882-6
  12. Goold SD, Green SA, Biddle AK, Benavides E, Danis M. Will insured citizens give up benefit coverage to include the uninsured? J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(8):868-874. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.32102.x
  13. Goold SD, Green SA, Biddle AK, Benavides E, Danis M. Will insured citizens give up benefit coverage to include the uninsured? J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(8):868-874. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.32102.x
  14. Danis M, Goold SD, Parise C, Ginsburg M. Enhancing employee capacity to prioritize health insurance benefits. Health Expect. 2007;10(3):236-247. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00442.x
  15. Ginsburg M, Goold SD, Danis M. (De)constructing 'basic' benefits: citizens define the limits of coverage. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(6):1648-1655. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.6.1648
  16. Bosshard G, Zellweger U, Bopp M, et al. Medical end-of-life practices in Switzerland: a comparison of 2001 and 2013. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(4):555-556. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7676
  17. Rid A, Littlejohns P, Wilson J, Rumbold B, Kieslich K, Weale A. The importance of being NICE. J R Soc Med. 2015;108(10):385-389. doi:10.1177/0141076815598877
  18. Hurst SA, Mauron A. The ethics of palliative care and euthanasia: exploring common values. Palliat Med. 2006;20(2):107-112. doi:10.1191/0269216306pm1109oa
  19. Charlton V, Littlejohns P, Kieslich K, et al. Cost effective but unaffordable: an emerging challenge for health systems. BMJ. 2017;356:j1402. doi:10.1136/bmj.j1402
  20. Pesce JE, Kpaduwa CS, Danis M. Deliberation to enhance awareness of and prioritize socioeconomic interventions for health. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(5):789-797. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.002
  21. Danis M, Kotwani N, Garrett J, Rivera I, Davies-Cole J, Carter-Nolan P. Priorities of low-income urban residents for interventions to address the socio-economic determinants of health. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(4):1318-1339. doi:10.1353/hpu.2010.0929
  22. Danis M, Lovett F, Sabik L, Adikes K, Cheng G, Aomo T. Low-income employees' choices regarding employment benefits aimed at improving the socioeconomic determinants of health. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(9):1650-1657. doi:10.2105/ajph.2006.091033
  23. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, et al. Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615-618. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  24. Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics. Allophone migrants and the healthcare system. Ethical issues of community interpreting. Bern: NEK-CNE; 2017.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 August 2017
  • Revise Date: 19 January 2018
  • Accept Date: 12 February 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 August 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics