ABSTRACT
In the absence of national direction, the United Kingdom's system also leaves room for local flexibility and a number of interesting methods have emerged. However, whereas a central Government committee in Sweden has recommended priority setting principles for local authorities to follow, the British Government refuses to do more than set targets for reduction in health conditions and waiting lists. A variety of methods have been used to set priorities for growth money– that is funds available for service developments - and these may lead to better techniques for shifting resources across the spectrum of healthcare. In general, funding has tended to favour prevention and community care, but some means of assessing outcome is needed if the preference is to be maintained. Novel methods of consulting the public have been devised; though a ranking exercise for 16 treatments showed the need for relevant information if informed choices are to be made.
