Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Debate continues in Israel as to whether to allow patients in public hospitals to choose their physician in return for an additional, out-of-pocket payment. One argument against this arrangement is that the most senior physicians will devote most of their time to private patients and not be sufficiently available to public patients with complex cases.

Objectives: To analyze the patterns of surgical seniority in Jerusalem hospitals from a number of perspectives, including the extent to which: a) opting for private care increases the likelihood of being treated by a very senior surgeon; b) public patients undergoing complex operations are being treated by very senior surgeons, c) the most senior surgeons allocate a significant portion of their time to private patients.

Methods: Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from the operating room records of three of the public hospitals in Jerusalem for all 38,840 operations performed in 2001. Of them, roughly 6000 operations (16%) were performed privately. Operations were classified as "most complex," "moderately complex" and "least complex" by averaging the independent ratings of eight medical and surgical experts. The surgeon's seniority was graded as "tenured" (tenured board-certified specialists, including department heads), "senior" (non-tenured board-certified specialists), and "residents." For each operation, we considered the seniority of the lead surgeon and of the most senior surgeon on the surgical team.

Results: The lead surgeon was of tenured rank in 99% of the most complex private cases and 74% of the most complex public cases, in 93% of the moderately complex private and 35% of the moderately complex public cases, and in 92% of the least complex private and 32% of the least complex public cases. The surgical team included a tenured physician in 97%, 66%, and 53% of the most complex, moderately complex, and least complex public operations, respectively. In both private and public cases, a board-certified (tenured or senior) specialist was a member of the surgical team for almost all of the most complex and moderately complex operations. On average, over half of the operations in which the lead surgeon was a department head were performed on public patients. Among tenured surgeons, those who spent more hours than their colleagues leading private operations also tended, on average, to spend more hours leading public operations.

Conclusions: Private patients have an advantage over public patients in terms of the seniority of the lead surgeon. However, there is also substantial involvement of very senior surgeons in the treatment of public patients, particularly in those cases that are most complex. 

Background: With market failures characterizing the health care sector, societies are continuously searching for ways to achieve an efficient and fair allocation of resources. A natural source of opinion on the desired allocation of health resources is the public. In fact, several governments have recently involved the general public in decisions about resource allocation in their health systems.

Objectives: To investigate the views of the Israeli Jewish public aged 45-75 on horizontal equity in medical care; specifically, the characteristics (including a lottery) for determining which of two individuals with similar medical need should be treated first, against a background of limited resources.

Methods: A sample of 2,030 individuals was chosen to represent a population of about 800,000 urban Jewish Israelis aged 45–75. Data were collected in face-to-face full sit-down interviews by trained interviewers between October 1993 and February 1994.

Results: The three most preferred prioritizers were chances of recovery, number of dependants, and young age. Random prioritization was preferred by only 8% of the population. Age, level of education and religiosity were the main characteristics associated with the choice.

Conclusions: The Israeli adult public does not favor strict horizontal equity in health care. As in other social programs, “equals” were defined in a multi-criteria manner, based on both medical need and other personal characteristics. The preferred prioritizers seem to reflect universal tastes and cast doubt on the traditional distinction between efficiency and equity and between horizontal and vertical equity when applied to health care.