# Public Healthcare: Citizen’s Preferences in Spain

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. The Public Healthcare System in Spain

## 3. Starting Points, Methodology, and Data Sources

#### 3.1. About Individuals Preferences

#### 3.2. Methodology

**Definition**

**1**

**.**Let $\mathcal{P}=({\mathcal{R}}_{0},\dots ,{\mathcal{R}}_{T})\in \mathbf{W}{\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}^{T+1}$ be a temporal decision profile. The local preference stability measure between the temporal preferences at the moments of time ${t}_{i-1}$ and ${t}_{i}$ is a mapping ${\theta}_{i}:\mathbf{W}\left(\mathbf{X}\right)\u27f6[0,1]$ given by

**Definition**

**2**

**.**Let $\mathcal{P}\in \mathbf{W}{\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}^{T+1}$ a decision temporal profile. The global preference stability measure for the temporal preference profile $\mathcal{P}\in \mathbf{W}{\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}^{T+1}$ is the mapping $\Theta :\mathbf{W}{\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}^{T+1}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{+}\u27f6[0,1]$ given by

#### 3.3. Data Sources and Sample Characteristics

- First, it seems interesting to study how much Spaniards’ preferences are stable but considering the entire society.
- Second, and due to the decentralization of the healthcare system, it could be engrossing to measure the stability of the preferences bearing in mind the different Spanish regions.
- Finally and because of citizens’ perceptions about the healthcare system could depend on the age, it could be therefore appropriate to analyze the preferences considering the population depending on its age. In this regard, three age groups have been considered: younger than 34 years old, between 35–54 years old and older than 55 years old.

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Analysis of Question 1: Have Spaniards’ Preferences on the Health System Changed?

#### 4.1.1. Analysis of the Society

#### 4.1.2. Analysis by Regions

#### 4.1.3. Analysis by Age-Group

#### 4.2. Analysis of Question 2: Have the Spaniards’ Level of Satisfaction with the Public Health System Changed?

#### 4.2.1. Analysis of the Society

#### 4.2.2. Analysis by Regions

#### 4.2.3. Analysis by Age-Group

## 5. Discussion

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

Year | Spaniards’ Preferences | Year | Spaniards’ Preferences |
---|---|---|---|

1995 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2007 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1996 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2008 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1997 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2009 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1998 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2010 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1999 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2011 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2000 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2012 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2001 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2013 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2002 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2014 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2003 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2015 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2004 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2016 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2005 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2017 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2006 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | 2018 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

**Figure A1.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures obtained for the entire society for Question 1.

**Figure A2.**Graphic illustration of the global preferences stability measures for the entire society from different values of $\lambda $ for Question 1.

**Table A2.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to several values of $\lambda $ for Question 1.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | |

Global preference stability | 0.9826087 | 0.9776651 | 0.9812783 | 0.9920990 | 0.9972567 |

**Figure A3.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures for Question 1 obtained for each region.

**Table A3.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to different regions and several values of $\lambda $ for Question 1.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Regions | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |

Andalucia | 0.9826087 | 0.9950658 | 0.9995857 | 00.9999965 | 1.0000000 |

Aragón | 0.9652174 | 0.9684452 | 0.9660163 | 0.9614682 | 0.9632942 |

Asturias | 0.9565217 | 0.9408391 | 0.9043652 | 0.8629218 | 0.8393721 |

Baleares | 0.9217391 | 0.9437514 | 0.9578652 | 0.9668629 | 0.9752670 |

Canarias | 0.8347826 | 0.8376190 | 0.8355414 | 0.8417044 | 0.8601247 |

Cantabria | 0.8782609 | 0.9356513 | 0.9802530 | 0.9973639 | 0.9996352 |

Castilla la Mancha | 0.9391304 | 0.9381899 | 0.9335265 | 0.9136905 | 0.8918526 |

Castilla y León | 0.9304348 | 0.9404001 | 0.9676798 | 0.9904916 | 0.9970828 |

Cataluña | 0.9913043 | 0.9976561 | 0.9998186 | 0.9999987 | 1.0000000 |

Comunidad Valenciana | 0.9652174 | 0.9708581 | 0.9813679 | 0.9936837 | 0.9982736 |

Extremadura | 0.9739130 | 0.9917355 | 0.9991472 | 0.9999887 | 0.9999999 |

Galicia | 0.9565217 | 0.9533758 | 0.9604581 | 0.9777476 | 0.9879387 |

Madrid | 0.9304348 | 0.9053828 | 0.8750345 | 0.8587822 | 0.8531169 |

Murcia | 0.9391304 | 0.9626528 | 0.9818467 | 0.9945889 | 0.9985651 |

Navarra | 0.8956522 | 0.9257459 | 0.9597434 | 0.9855999 | 0.9947421 |

País Vasco | 0.9826087 | 0.9918649 | 0.9985541 | 0.9999576 | 0.9999990 |

La Rioja | 0.9826087 | 0.9836178 | 0.9916792 | 0.9985955 | 0.9998181 |

**Figure A4.**Graphic illustration of the global decision stability measures for Question 1 obtained for each region.

**Figure A5.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures obtained for each age group for Question 1.

**Table A4.**Temporal preferences established by Healthcare Spanish Barometer attending to different age ranges for Question 1.

Age-Group | |||
---|---|---|---|

Year | $\le \mathbf{34}$ | 35–54 | $\ge \mathbf{55}$ |

1995 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1996 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1997 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{1}\sim {x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1998 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

1999 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2000 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2001 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2002 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2003 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2004 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2005 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2006 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2007 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2008 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2009 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2010 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2011 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2012 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2013 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2014 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2015 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2016 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2017 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

2018 | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{4}$ | ${x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{4}$ |

**Figure A6.**Graphic illustration of the global preferences stability measures from different values of $\lambda $ and different age ranges for Question 1.

**Table A5.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to different age ranges and several values of $\lambda $ for Question 1.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Age-Group | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |

$\le 34$ | 0.9826087 | 0.9900637 | 0.9976161 | 0.9998847 | 0.9999957 |

35–54 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

$\ge 55$ | 0.9652174 | 0.9848571 | 0.9971357 | 0.9998798 | 0.9999957 |

Year | Spaniards’ Preferences |
---|---|

2001 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2002 | ${x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2003 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2004 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2005 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{2}\succ {x}_{1}$ |

2006 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2007 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2008 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2009 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2010 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2011 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2012 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2013 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2014 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2015 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2016 | |

2017 | ${x}_{8}\succ {x}_{7}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

2018 | ${x}_{7}\succ {x}_{8}\succ {x}_{6}\succ {x}_{5}\succ {x}_{9}\succ {x}_{10}\succ {x}_{4}\succ {x}_{3}\succ {x}_{1}\succ {x}_{2}$ |

**Figure A7.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures obtained for the entire society for Question 2.

**Table A7.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to several values of $\lambda $ for Question 2.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | |

Global preference stability | 0.9613445 | 0.9658650 | 0.9695323 | 0.9693923 | 0.9680178 |

**Figure A8.**Graphic illustration of the global preferences stability measures for Spaniards from different values of $\lambda $ for Questions 1 and 2.

**Table A8.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to different regions and several values of $\lambda $ for Question 2.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Regions | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |

Andalucia | 0.921849 | 0.916064 | 0.901767 | 0.878874 | 0.862772 |

Aragón | 0.910084 | 0.933121 | 0.957405 | 0.972920 | 0.976092 |

Asturias | 0.894118 | 0.901928 | 0.909577 | 0.916134 | 0.919626 |

Baleares | 0.863866 | 0.875310 | 0.888222 | 0.900539 | 0.908096 |

Canarias | 0.884874 | 0.889668 | 0.896446 | 0.903622 | 0.907242 |

Cantabria | 0.865546 | 0.877306 | 0.882459 | 0.872534 | 0.861259 |

Castilla la Mancha | 0.893277 | 0.898100 | 0.901662 | 0.900201 | 0.895686 |

Castilla y León | 0.930434 | 0.940400 | 0.967679 | 0.990491 | 0.997082 |

Cataluña | 0.899160 | 0.902688 | 0.904091 | 0.901932 | 0.899824 |

Comunidad Valenciana | 0.905882 | 0.908980 | 0.914459 | 0.921917 | 0.927277 |

Extremadura | 0.875630 | 0.893600 | 0.915334 | 0.932753 | 0.939525 |

Galicia | 0.884034 | 0.885832 | 0.887229 | 0.886079 | 0.884161 |

Madrid | 0.931933 | 0.940310 | 0.947095 | 0.951005 | 0.951675 |

Murcia | 0.873950 | 0.888473 | 0.898516 | 0.899259 | 0.896087 |

Navarra | 0.905882 | 0.903787 | 0.898855 | 0.893241 | 0.890410 |

País Vasco | 0.908403 | 0.906893 | 0.903737 | 0.900229 | 0.899790 |

La Rioja | 0.885714 | 0.903187 | 0.922646 | 0.934991 | 0.937840 |

**Figure A9.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures for Question 2 obtained for each region.

**Figure A10.**Graphic illustration of the global decision stability measures for Question 2 obtained for each region.

**Figure A11.**Graphic illustration of the local decision stability measures obtained for each age group and Question 2.

**Figure A12.**Graphic illustration of the global preferences stability measures from different values of $\lambda $ and different age ranges for Question 2.

**Table A9.**Global stability measures for Spaniards’ preferences attending to different age ranges and several values of $\lambda $ for Question 2.

$\mathit{\lambda}$ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | |

$\le 34$ | 0.9479 | 0.9461 | 0.9384 | 0.9269 | 0.9211 |

35–54 | 0.9429 | 0.9509 | 0.9581 | 0.9630 | 0.9659 |

$\ge 55$ | 0.9580 | 0.9598 | 0.9664 | 0.9749 | 0.9777 |

## References

- Kulesher, R.; Forrestal, E. International models of health systems financing. Int. Model. Health Syst. Financ.
**2014**, 3, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rodriguez, J.A.; de Miguel, J.M. The case of Spain. Health Policy
**1990**, 15, 119–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - European Observatory on Health Systems and Policie. Spain: Country Health Profile 2019, State of Health in the EU; Technical Report; OECD Publishing, Paris/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Martinussen, P.; Magnussen, J. Is having private health insurance associated with less support for public healthcare? Evidence from the Norwegian NHS. Health Policy
**2019**, 123, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Meleddu, M.; Pulina, M.; Scuderi, R. Public and private healthcare services: What drives the choice? Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.
**2020**, 70, 100739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arrow, K. Utilities, Attitudes, Choices: A Review Note. Econometrica
**1958**, 26, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gilboa, I. Theory of Decision under Uncertainty; Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- de Andrés Calle, R.; Cascón, J.; González-Arteaga, T. Preferences stability: A measure of preferences changes over time. Decis. Support Syst.
**2020**, 129, 113169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - WHO. Regional Office for Europe and European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. In Spain: Health System Review; Durán, A., Lara, J., van Waveren, M., Bankauskaite, V., Eds.; Health Systems in Transition; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
- Arrow, K. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed.; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- González-Artega, T.; de Andrés Calle, R.; Peral, M. Preference stability along time: The time cohesiveness measure. Prog. Artif. Intell.
**2017**, 6, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - González-Arteaga, T.; de Andrés Calle, R. New approach to measure preference stability. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Naples, Italy, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- González-Arteaga, T.; Cascón, J.; de Andrés Calle, R. A Proposal to Measure Human Group Behaviour Stability. In Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Applications, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference, IPMU 2018, Cádiz, Spain, 11–15 June 2018; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 99–110. [Google Scholar]
- González-Arteaga, T.; Alcantud, J.; de Andrés Calle, R. A new consensus ranking approach for correlated ordinal information based on Mahalanobis distance. Inf. Sci.
**2016**, 372, 546–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Cascón, J.; González-Arteaga, T.; de Andrés Calle, R. Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case. Omega
**2019**, 86, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 1.**Chronology of devolution of health competences to autonomous regions in Spain. * Source: Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs [9].

Year | Sample Size | Year | Sample Size | Year | Sample Size |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1995 | 6759 | 2003 | 6785 | 2011 | 7757 |

1996 | 2263 | 2004 | 6759 | 2012 | 7729 |

1997 | 4524 | 2005 | 6728 | 2013 | 7750 |

1998 | 6778 | 2006 | 6756 | 2014 | 7721 |

1999 | 6786 | 2007 | 6745 | 2015 | 7746 |

2000 | 6773 | 2008 | 7125 | 2016 | 7752 |

2001 | 2257 | 2009 | 7752 | 2017 | 7736 |

2002 | 6746 | 2010 | 7750 | 2018 | 7686 |

**Table 2.**Proportions used by the Spanish Center of Sociological Research to obtain regional sample sizes.

Regions | Proportion | Regions | Proportion |
---|---|---|---|

Andalucia | 10.2% | Comunidad Valenciana | 7.4% |

Aragón | 4.4% | Extremadura | 4.2% |

Asturias | 4.2 % | Galicia | 5.7% |

Baleares | 4.2 % | Madrid | 8.5% |

Canarias | 4.9% | Murcia | 4.1% |

Cantabria | 3.8% | Navarra | 3.7% |

Castilla La Mancha | 5% | País Vasco | 5% |

Castilla y León | 5.3% | La Rioja | 3.4% |

Cataluña | 9.6% |

Age-Group | Preferences |
---|---|

$\le 34$ | ${X}_{7}\succ {X}_{6}\succ {X}_{5}\succ {X}_{8}\succ {X}_{4}\succ {X}_{9}\succ {X}_{3}\succ {X}_{1}\succ {X}_{10}\succ {X}_{2}$ |

35–54 | ${X}_{7}\succ {X}_{6}\succ {X}_{8}\succ {X}_{5}\succ {X}_{4}\succ {X}_{9}\succ {X}_{3}\succ {X}_{10}\succ {X}_{1}\succ {X}_{2}$ |

$\ge 55$ | ${X}_{8}\succ {X}_{7}\succ {X}_{6}\succ {X}_{5}\succ {X}_{9}\succ {X}_{10}\succ {X}_{4}\succ {X}_{3}\succ {X}_{1}\succ {X}_{2}$ |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Prieto-Herraez, S.; González-Arteaga, T.; Calle, R.d.A.
Public Healthcare: Citizen’s Preferences in Spain. *Healthcare* **2020**, *8*, 467.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040467

**AMA Style**

Prieto-Herraez S, González-Arteaga T, Calle RdA.
Public Healthcare: Citizen’s Preferences in Spain. *Healthcare*. 2020; 8(4):467.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040467

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Prieto-Herraez, Silvia, Teresa González-Arteaga, and Rocío de Andrés Calle.
2020. "Public Healthcare: Citizen’s Preferences in Spain" *Healthcare* 8, no. 4: 467.
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040467