Nowadays there is indeed extensive experience in priority-setting work in Sweden both at county council/regional level as well as within individual clinical units. However, there are no universal solutions regarding how systematic priority-setting work should be done. Different variations and organisation of procedures have been tested and implemented throughout the country. One example is Östergötland Region with a long tradition of work with priority-setting issues, another example is Motala municipality, which has developed a process and model for priority setting though out all of their responsibility areas. We have done evaluations and given methodological support to both. There are also other examples. My colleagues and I have published several reports (in Swedish) about different examples and an article ”Formal priority setting in health care: the Swedish experience”.
Allocation of resources takes place at different levels in health care, both between broad operational areas at more of a county council/regional level and within different clinical areas. The system for county council/regional resource allocation is based on different criteria, but often this is not open and transparent to citizens. How the politicians weigh up these criteria and make decisions on resource allocation at overall county council/regional level is not totally apparent. How do politicians, senior administrators and clinical leaders consider the system for resource allocation in the official health care system? What type of information and decision support do the decision makers consider they need to have to make informed decisions on priority setting? How are the expressed political goals and strategies linked to decisions on priority setting and resource allocation? These are some of the interesting questions with which I work.