Making Hard Choices in Local Public Health Spending With a Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach

Background: In 2013, public health moved into Local Authorities, but initial optimism has been overtaken by serious ongoing financial constraints and an uncertain future. Hard choices have become an everyday reality across local authorities and for their public health teams. Assessing the return-on-...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lee Robertson (Author), Chris Skelly (Author), David Phillips (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Frontiers Media S.A., 2019-06-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_9e7d6deca2e4433ca9c8ae61ed48a028
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Lee Robertson  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Chris Skelly  |e author 
700 1 0 |a David Phillips  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Making Hard Choices in Local Public Health Spending With a Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach 
260 |b Frontiers Media S.A.,   |c 2019-06-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 2296-2565 
500 |a 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00147 
520 |a Background: In 2013, public health moved into Local Authorities, but initial optimism has been overtaken by serious ongoing financial constraints and an uncertain future. Hard choices have become an everyday reality across local authorities and for their public health teams. Assessing the return-on-investment of public health interventions and possessing economic evaluation skills have become more critical than ever before.Methods: Using the New Economy cost-benefits-analysis model developed at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, we undertook cost benefit analyses of some of our largest areas of commissioned spend in local public health practice to better understand both the public and fiscal returns of our interventions.Results: The cost-benefit analyses indicated considerable variation in the public (economic and social) returns-on-investment for our spend on services purchased as a commissioner with £1.37 to 6.81 returned for every £1 spent, and a fiscal return for every £1 invested of between £0.54 and 1.37. Additionally, the fiscal benefits (reduced service costs) of these public health interventions appear to primarily flow to the NHS, which accounts for about 94% of the fiscal return.Conclusion: While cost-benefit modeling cannot provide a complete picture of "value," it does provide decision-makers with a transparent metric that facilitates a whole-of system discussion on "intervention value" and prevention at scale investments. This approach will support investment strategies when implementing Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships and Integrated Care Systems. However, these tools should be used to support robust decision-making processes, not as a replacement for or a short-circuiting of existing processes. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a economic model 
690 |a decision-making 
690 |a cost benefit analyses 
690 |a public health 
690 |a health ecomic perspectives 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Frontiers in Public Health, Vol 7 (2019) 
787 0 |n https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00147/full 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2296-2565 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/9e7d6deca2e4433ca9c8ae61ed48a028  |z Connect to this object online.