From a normative perspective, conventional economic analysis is often used to establish a framework in which social objectives can be built into the decision-making process. The health economics literature, however, tends to overlook the positive analysis of decision making–often assuming particular social objectives that may or may not correspond with reality. This perhaps explains why exercises in health economics priority setting on occasions break down.
This study is a positive analysis of group decision making. It examines the process of deliberating upon proposed changes to funding arrangements across Divisions of General Practice in Queensland, Australia. Existing levels of funding had, for a number of years, largely been determined by an allocation formula. The motivation for this study was a perceived inequity created by the long-term under-funding of smaller resource poor (or \"marginal\") Divisions.
Social Science & Medicine 57 (3) 427-435 [doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00368-4]