Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to (...) today’s severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda. (shrink)

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities. We review explicit priority setting efforts in Norway, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, the United (...) Kingdom and the state of Oregon in the US. The approaches used can be divided into those centered on outlining principles versus those that define practices. In order to establish the main lessons from their experiences we consider the process each country used, criteria to judge the success of these efforts, which approaches seem to have met these criteria, and using their successes and failures as a guide, how to proceed in setting priorities. We demonstrate that there is little evidence that establishment of a values framework for priority setting has had any effect on health policy, nor is there evidence that priority setting exercises have led to the envisaged ideal of an open and participatory public involvement in decision making. (shrink)

Recently theorists have demonstrated a growing interest in the ethical aspects of resource allocation in international non-governmental humanitarian, development and human rights organizations (INGOs). This article provides an analysis of Thomas Pogge's proposal for how international human rights organizations ought to choose which projects to fund. Pogge's allocation principle states that an INGO should govern its decision making about candidate projects by such rules and procedures as are expected to maximize its long-run cost-effectiveness, defined as the expected aggregate moral value (...) of the projects it undertakes divided by the expected aggregate cost of these projects? I critique Pogge's argument on two fronts: (1) I demonstrate that his view is problematic on his own terms, even if we accept the cost-effectiveness framework he employs. (2) I take issue with his overall approach because it generates results which can undermine the integrity of INGOs. Further, his approach mis-characterizes the nature of INGOs, and this mistake is at the root of his problematic view of INGO priority-setting. Ultimately, I argue for a conception of INGOs in which they are understood as ?organizations of principle?, in the sense that they are independent moral agents and so should be permitted a fairly wide sphere of autonomy within reasonable moral constraints. (shrink)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be the most important health law statute in American history, yet much of the most prominent legal scholarship examining it has focused on the merits of the court challenges it has faced rather than delving into the details of its priority-setting provisions. In addition to providing an overview of the ACA’s provisions concerning priority setting and their developing interpretations, this Article attempts to defend three substantive propositions. First, I argue that (...) the ACA is neither uniformly hostile nor uniformly friendly to efforts to set priorities in ways that promote cost and quality. Second, I argue that the ACA does not take a single, unified approach to priority setting; rather, its guidance varies depending on the aspect of the health care system at issue (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Medicare, essential health benefits) and the factors being excluded from priority setting (age, disability, life expectancy). Third, I argue that cost-effectiveness can be achieved within the ACA's constraints, but that doing so will require adopting new approaches to cost-effectiveness and priority setting. By limiting the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis, the ACA makes the need for workable rivals to cost-effectiveness analysis a pressing practical concern rather than a mere theoretical worry. (shrink)

Background:The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees’ moral stress and job satisfaction.Aim:Describe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway.Research design:A cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020.Ethical considerations:Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics (...) Committee in Western Norway (131421).Findings:Among the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0–10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful.Discussion:By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority.Conclusion:Empirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms. (shrink)

There has been much discussion about how to obtain legitimacy at macro-level priority setting in health care by use of fair procedures, but how should we consider priority setting by individual clinicians or health workers at the micro-level? Despite the fact that just health care totally hinges upon their decisions, surprisingly little attention seems being paid to the legitimacy of these decisions. This paper addresses the following question: what are the conditions that have to be met (...) in order to ensure that individual claims on health care are well aligned with an overall concept of just health care? Drawing upon a distinction between individual and aggregated needs, I argue that even though we assume the legitimacy of macro-level guidelines, this legitimacy is not directly transferable to decisions at micro-level simply by adherence to the guidelines’ recommendation. Further, I argue that individual claims are subject to the formal principle of equality and the demands of vertical and horizontal equity in a way that gives context- and patient-related equity concerns precedence over equity concerns captured at the macro-level. I conclude that if we aim to achieve just health care, we need to develop a complementary framework for legitimising individual judgment of patients’ claims on health care resources. Moreover, I suggest the basic structure of such a framework. (shrink)

The study examined the question of who should make decisions for a National Health Scheme about the allocation of health resources when the health states of beneficiaries could change because of adaptation. Eight semi-structured small group discussions were conducted. Following focus group theory, interviews commenced with general questions followed by transition questions and ended with a ‘focus’ or ‘key’ question. Participants were presented with several scenarios in which patients adapted to their health states. They were then asked their views about (...) the appropriate role of the public, patients and health professionals in making social judgements of quality of life. After discussion and debate, all groups were asked the key question: ‘In light of adaptation, who should evaluate quality of life for the purpose of setting priorities in the allocation of health care?’ In all groups participants presented strong arguments for and against decision making by patients, the public and health professionals. However, most groups thought a representative body which included a range of perspectives should make the relevant judgements. This is at odds with the recommendations in most national pharmaceutical guidelines. The main conclusion of the paper is that health economists and other researchers should explore the possibility of adopting a deliberative, consensus-based approach to evaluating health-related quality of life when such judgements are to be used to inform priority setting in a public system. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to study the relationship between Epicureanism and pandemic priority-setting and to explore whether Epicurus's philosophy is compliant with the later developed utilitarianism. We find this aim interesting because Epicurus had a different way of valuing death than our modern society does: Epicureanism holds that death—understood as the incident of death—cannot be bad (or good) for those who die (self-regarding effects). However, this account is still consistent with the view that a particular death (...) can be bad for everyone else but those who die, such as family, friends, and society (other-regarding effects). During the pandemic, the focus has been on the number of deaths more than on the suffering and reduced well-being of those infected and the rest of society. However, since the pandemic requires prioritization, it is, on a utilitarian account, important to consider priorities that do the most good overall. In this article, we approach the harm of death from an Epicurean point of view, seeking to flesh out potential implications for pandemic priority-setting, and healthcare in general, using a case study of COVID-19 priority-setting. We also explore whether this would conflict with utilitarianism. We conclude that an Epicurean pandemic priority-setting approach would be different but, surprisingly, not radically different from many of the actual priority-setting decisions we saw under the COVID-19 pandemic. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role that values play in priority setting through the use of EBP. It is important to be clear about the role of values at all levels of the decision making process. At one level, society as a whole has to make decisions about the kind of health provision that it wants. As is generally accepted, these priority setting questions cannot be answered by medical science alone but involve (...) important judgements of value. However, as I hope to show values come into priority setting questions at another level, one not often explicitly recognised in much of the literature: that of the very definition of the effectiveness of treatments. This has important consequences for patient care. If we do not recognise that the effectiveness of a treatment involve subjective elements — a patient's own assessment of the value of the treatment — then this could lead to the belief that we can purchase one treatment that is the most effective for all patients. This might result in a detrimental reduction in the range of options that a patient is given with some patients not receiving the treatment that is most effective for them. (shrink)

Germany has just started a public debate on priority-setting, rationing and cost-effectiveness due to the cost explosion within the German health care system. To date, the costs for German health care run at 11,6 % of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP, 278,3 billion €) that represents a significant increase from the 5,9 % levels present in 1970. In response, the German Parliament has enacted several major and minor legal reforms over the last three decades for the sake of (...) cost containment and maintaining stability of the health care system. The Statutory Health Insurance—SHI (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung—GKV) is based on the fundamental principle of solidarity and provides an ethical and legal framework for implementing equity, comprehensiveness and setting the principles and rules for financing and providing health care services and benefits. Within the SHI system, several major actors can be identified: the Federal Ministry of Health, the 16 state ministries of health, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the physicians (with their associations) and the hospitals (with their organizations) on the provider side, and the sickness funds with their associations on the purchasers’ side. This article reviews the structure and complexities of the German health care system with its major players and participants. The focus will be put on relevant ethical, legal and economic aspects for prioritization, rationalization, rationing and cost-effectiveness of medical benefits and services. In conclusion, this article pleads for open discussion on the challenging subject of priority-setting instead of accepting the implicit and non-transparent rationing of medical services that currently occurs at many different levels within the health care system, as it stands today. (shrink)

BackgroundThe idea that individuals are responsible for their health has been the focus of debate in the theoretical literature and in its concrete application to healthcare policy in many countries. Controversies persist regarding the form, substance and fairness of allocating health responsibility to the individual, particularly in universal, need-based healthcare systems.ObjectiveTo examine how personal health responsibility has been framed and rationalised in Norwegian key policy documents on priority setting.MethodsDocuments issued or published by the Ministry of Health and Care (...) Services between 1987 and 2018 were thematically analysed. We developed a predefined conceptual framework that guided the analysis. The framework included: the subject and object of responsibility, the level of conceptual abstraction, temporality, normative justificatory arguments and objections to the application of personal health responsibility.ResultsAs an additional criterion, personal health responsibility has been interpreted as relevant if: the patient’s harmful behaviour is repeated after receiving treatment, and if the success of the treatment is conditional on the patient’s behavioural change. When discussed as a retrospective criterion, considerations of reciprocal fairness have been dominant. When discussed as a prospective criterion, the expected benefit of treatment justified its relevance.ConclusionPersonal health responsibility appears to challenge core values of equality, inclusion and solidarity in the Norwegian context and has been repeatedly rejected as a necessary criterion for priority setting. However, the responsibility criterion seems to have some relevance in particular priority setting decisions. (shrink)

The Scandinavian welfare states have public health care systems which have universal coverage and traditionally low influence of private insurance and private provision. Due to raises in costs, elaborate public control of health care, and a significant technological development in health care, priority setting came on the public agenda comparatively early in the Scandinavian countries. The development of health care priority setting has been partly homogeneous and appears to follow certain phases. This can be of broader (...) interest as it may shed light on alternative models and strategies in health care priority setting. Some general trends have been identified: from principles to procedures, from closed to open processes, and from experts to participation. Five general approaches have been recognized: The moral principles and values based approach, the moral principles and economic assessment approach, the procedural approach, the expert based practice defining approach, and the participatory practice defining approach. There are pros and cons with all of these approaches. For the time being the fifth approach appears attractive, but its lack of true participation and the lack of clear success criteria may pose significant challenges in the future. (shrink)

BackgroundNusinersen is one of an increasing number of new, expensive orphan drugs to receive authorization. These drugs strain public healthcare budgets and challenge principles for resource allocation. Nusinersen was introduced in the Norwegian public healthcare system in 2018. A national expert group consisting of physicians was formed to oversee the introduction and continuation of treatment in light of specific start and stop criteria.MethodsWe have studied experiences within the expert group with a special emphasis on their application of the start and (...) stop criteria, rationing of treatment, and experienced moral dilemmas. A research interview with six members of the national expert group was performed, then analysed with manifest content analysis. The analysis was supplemented with publically available sources on priority setting and the process leading up to the introduction of nusinersen and the establishment of the expert group.ResultsSixty-six patients have received treatment within the first 25 months since the national expert group’s establishment. Treatment has not been discontinued for any patient. No patients under 18 years of age have been denied treatment, as those who were referred at this age were all deemed to fulfill the start criteria. The expert group has, however, increased geographical treatment equity and facilitated important cooperation at the national level. Furthermore, it has enhanced open and critical discussions of both medical issues and new ethical dilemmas.ConclusionAlthough facilitating equal access to treatment for SMA patients, the national expert group has not discontinued treatment for any patient. It is suggested that in order for clinicians to be able to ration care for individual patients, they require both adequate support and sufficient formal authority. Start and stop criteria need to be re-evaluated as more knowledge and experience are gained regarding the treatment. (shrink)

As its title suggests this book's main area of inquiry is the rationale for, and methodology of, public involvement in priority setting. Mullen and Spurgeon set out to evaluate a number of assumptions and hard issues in priority setting. In doing so they have a produced a volume that is both a useful introduction to this area and a worthy piece of research on an important theme. They begin by contextualising the debate about prioritisation within the (...) recent history of health system reform in the UK and other nations. This move enables them to give an analysis of considerable scope. They are not just interested in rationing …. (shrink)

Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should (...) additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children's educational attainment, or just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? Global Health Priority-Setting provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policy-makers, and clinicians from around the world assess the state of current practice in national and global priority setting, describe new tools and methodologies to address establishing global health priorities, and tackle the most important ethical questions that decision-makers must consider in allocating health resources. (shrink)

As health policy-makers around the world seek to make progress towards universal health coverage, they must navigate between two important ethical imperatives: to set national spending priorities fairly and efficiently; and to safeguard the right to health. These imperatives can conflict, leading some to conclude that rights-based approaches present a disruptive influence on health policy, hindering states’ efforts to set priorities fairly and efficiently. Here, we challenge this perception. We argue first that these points of tension stem largely from inadequate (...) interpretations of the aims of priority setting as well as the right to health. We then discuss various ways in which the right to health complements traditional concerns of priority setting and vice versa. Finally, we set out a three-step process by which policy-makers may navigate the ethical and legal considerations at play. (shrink)

The vast majority of health research resources are used to study conditions that affect a small, advantaged portion of the global population. This distribution has been widely criticized as inequitable and threatens to exacerbate health disparities. However, there has been little systematic work on what individual health research funders ought to do in response. In this article, we analyze the general and special duties of research funders to the different populations that might benefit from health research. We assess how these (...) duties apply to governmental, multilateral, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. We thereby derive a framework for how different types of funders should take the beneficiaries of research into account when they allocate scarce research resources. (shrink)

This paper develops an account of the normative basis of priority setting in health care as combining the values which a given society holds for the common good of its members, with the universal provided by a principle of common humanity. We discuss national differences in health basket in Europe and argue that health care decision-making in complex social and moral frameworks is best thought of as anchored in such a principle by drawing on the philosophy of need. (...) We show that health care needs are ethically ‘thick’ needs whose psychological and social construction can best be understood in terms of David Wiggins’s notion of vital need: a person’s need is vital when failure to meet it leads to their harm and suffering. The moral dimension of priority setting which operates across different societies’ health care systems is located in the demands both of and on any society to avoid harm to its members. (shrink)

Background Ethical principles behind prioritization in healthcare are continuously relevant. However, applying ethical principles during times of increased need, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, is challenging. Also, little is known about nursing home nurses’ prioritizations in their work to achieve well-being and health for nursing home residents. Aim The aim of this study was to explore nursing home nurses’ priority-setting for older nursing home residents in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research design, participants, and research context We (...) conducted a qualitative interview study. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (retrospective self-reports) between February and May 2021 with 21 nursing home nurses. To help respondents to recall their memories, we used the critical incident technique (CIT). We analyzed data within the theoretical framework and the methodological orientation of content analysis. Ethical considerations Written and verbal consent was obtained before the interviews, and information was given to participants informing them that participation was entirely voluntary. The Swedish Ethical Review Agency gave an advisory opinion stating that there were no ethical objections to the research project (Dnr. 2020-05649). Findings We identified an overarching theme—nursing home nurses struggling on multiple fronts, “just do it”—and seven categories: striving for survival and caring about a dignified death; responding sensitively to relatives’ expectations; ranking the urgency of needed care; responding to input from different actors; combating the spread of infection in unconventional ways; taking the lead and doing what is required; and following the ideals of person-centered nursing. Conclusions Nurses’ priority-setting for older nursing homes residents during the COVID-19 pandemic meant strain and struggle. In some cases, nurses had taken responsibility for priorities falling outside their statutory powers. Different demands and interests affected nurses’ priorities. Nursing home nurses need organizational and managerial support to prioritize. (shrink)

Most public and non-profit organisations that fund health research provide the majority of their funding in the form of grants. The calls for grant applications are often untargeted, such that a wide variety of applications may compete for the same funding. The grant review process therefore plays a critical role in determining how limited research resources are allocated. Despite this, little attention has been paid to whether grant review criteria align with widely endorsed ethical criteria for allocating health research resources. (...) Here, we analyse the criteria and processes that ten of the largest public and non-profit research funders use to choose between competing grant applications. Our data suggest that research funders rarely instruct reviewers to consider disease burden or to prioritise research for sicker or more disadvantaged populations, and typically only include scientists in the review processes. This is liable to undermine efforts to link research funding to health needs. (shrink)

What are the criteria for reasonable clinical judgements? The reasonableness of macro-level decision-making has been much discussed, but little attention has been paid to the reasonableness of applying guidelines generated at a macro-level to individual cases. This paper considers a framework for reasonable clinical decision-making that will capture cases where relevant guidelines cannot reasonably be followed. There are three main sections. (1) Individual claims on healthcare from the point of view of concerns about equity are analysed. (2) The demands of (...) responsibility and equity on professional clinical performance are discussed, and how the combination of these demands emerges into seven requirements that constitute the framework is explored. Since this framework is developed to assist in reasonable clinical decision-making, practical implications of all these requirements are also suggested. (3) Challenges concerning the framework are discussed. First, a crucial presumption that the framework relies upon is considered—namely, clinicians’ willingness to justify their decisions as requested. Then how public deliberation may influence clinical decision-making is discussed. Next is a consideration of how clinicians’ need to have confidence in their own judgements in order to perform in a manner worthy of trust would be compatible with adherence to the framework supported by public deliberation. It is concluded that fair distribution in the interplay between macro- and micro-level considerations can be secured by legitimising procedures on each level, by ensuring well-organised and continuing public debate and by basing individual clinical judgements upon well-justified and principled normative bases. (shrink)

Priority setting presents one of the biggest challenges policy makers in low-income countries have to deal with on a daily basis. Extreme lack of resources in these contexts introduces non-state stakeholders whose priorities may not necessarily reflect the national priorities. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the non-state stakeholders' involvement in priority setting. To date, the meagre literature on priority setting in low-income countries has not focused on the question of the legitimacy of (...) the non-state stakeholders, specifically, the development partners. This article fills this gap in the literature. We provide an overview of some of the health sector priority setting approaches, of relevance to low-income countries, including the processes, the stakeholders and their roles, and the priority setting challenges. These factors are explored, in-depth, using the case of Uganda. The sources of legitimacy of development assistance partners' involvement in priority setting is assessed based on current literature on sources of legitimacy and legitimacy in priority setting. The article concludes that both the government and development assistance partners need to work together to foster and maintain their legitimacy through; having fair priority setting processes with wide representation of all relevant stakeholders, explicit priority setting processes and a balance of decision making powers with commitment to accountability and transparency. (shrink)

Published accounts of specific priority-setting projects in healthcare are relatively few. This article chronicles the collaborative efforts of a professional practice lead and a bioethicist to strengthen the priority-setting process for a specific home care service. The project included two features not often reported in other priority-setting projects: the entire “frontline team” was involved for the project’s duration, and a group of parents was canvassed for their views. Informed by both Daniels’s “accountability for reasonableness” (...) approach and challenges levied against it, the article explains the evolution of an assessment procedure, eligibility and priority criteria, and guiding substantive principles and concludes with the “lessons learned” by the project leads. (shrink)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine priority setting for coronary artery bypass surgery, and to provide an overview of decisions and rationales used in clinical practice.Method: Questionnaires were sent to all permanently employed cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and anaesthesiologists at nine Swedish hospitals performing adult cardiothoracic surgery.Results: A total of 208 physicians responded . There was considerable agreement concerning the criteria that should be used to set priorities for coronary artery bypass interventions . However, there was (...) a lack of accord regarding the use of national guidelines for priority setting and risk indexes.Conclusions: Basic training and the strong support of ethical principles in priority setting are lacking. The respondents indicated a need for clearer guidelines and an open dialogue or discussion. The lack of generally acknowledged plans and guidelines for priority setting may result in unequal, conditional, and unfair treatment. (shrink)

Der Aufsatz widmet sich dem Wohlfahrtseffekt öffentlicher Ausgaben unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bereiche Gesundheitswesen und Bildungswesen. Ausgangspunkt ist die Feststellung des bemerkenswert geringen Ertrags hoher Aufwendungen für öffentliche Gesundheit, der insbesondere im Vergleich von Ländern mit teils deutlich variierenden Gesundheitsbudgets auffällt. Da das Gesundheitswesen aufgrund der Opportunitätskostenproblematik mit anderen Bereichen sozialpolitischer Sicherheitsgewähr um knappe öffentliche Mittel konkurriert, ist darauf zu achten, dass deren Allokation bestmöglich optimiert wird. Im deutschen Fall mit seinem ungewöhnlich hohen Anteil öffentlicher Gesundheitsausgaben legt das eine Verschiebung (...) der Prioritäten zugunsten des Bildungswesens nahe, wofür neben potentiellen Verbesserungen des Gesundheitsstatus der Bevölkerung und funktionalen, die gesellschaftliche Integration betreffenden Erwägungen auch solche der sozialen Gerechtigkeit sprechen. Ein Programm zur Reformierung des Gesundheitswesens, das diesen Leitlinien folgt, wird skizziert. (shrink)

During the last decade a “technical” approach has become increasingly influential in health care priority setting. The various country reports illustrate, however, that non-technical considerations cannot be avoided. As they often remain implicit in health care package decisions, this paper aims to make these normative judgements an explicit part of the procedure. More specifically, it aims to integrate different models of distributive justice as well as the principle of solidarity in four different phases of a decision-making procedure, and (...) to identify important moral choices which present themselves. First four important justice models are discussed, then a justification is given for their inclusion in a four-step decision making procedure. This is followed by a discussion of different justice and solidarity problems—with their inherent conceptual difficulties in each of these stages. The paper concludes with a summary of the major moral choices that are to be made in health care package decisions. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the accountability for reasonableness and its four conditions. This explains the priority setting and resource allocation for scarce resources. In this article it is discussed that how the scarce resources in a developing country like Pakistan be allocated in health care. This is explained with the help of case scenario.

Two principles form the basis for much priority setting in health. According to the greater benefit principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention with the greater health benefit. According to the worse off principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention benefiting those initially worse off. Jointly, these principles accord with so-called prioritarianism. Crucial for its operationalisation is the specification of the worse off. In this paper, we examine how the worse off can be defined as those (...) with the fewer lifetime Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). We contrast this proposal with several alternative specifications. (shrink)

Priority setting remains a big challenge for health managers and planners, yet there is paucity of literature on evaluating priority setting. The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. We conducted a qualitative study involving a review of literature and Delphi interviews with respondents knowledgeable of priority setting in low and middle income countries. Respondents were asked to identify the measures (...) of successful priority setting in low and middle income countries. Responses were grouped as: immediate internal or external/delayed internal or external. We also identified some pre-requisites for successful priority setting. The immediate internal measures included increased efficiency in decision making, improved quality of decisions and fairer priority setting. Immediate External measures included—improved public understanding and acceptance of decisions, increased public participation, increased trust. Delayed Internal measures included increased satisfaction, understanding, compliance, balanced budget, achievement of organization goals, and improved internal accountability. Delayed External measures include impact on policy and practice, improved population health and reduction of health inequalities, achievement of health system goals and strengthening of health care systems. Identified pre-requisites for successful priority setting included; the presence of credible priority setting institutions, incentives for participation and implementation and resources, capacity and political will to implement. These would be augmented in a conducive political, social and economic context. This framework, although not exhaustive, provides a practical basis for planning and evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. (shrink)

Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event. Frailty is most frequently assessed in the old using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CSF) which ranks frailty from 1 to 9. This assessment typically takes less than one minute and is not validated in patients with learning difficulties or those under 65 years old. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed guidelines that use “frailty” as one of the priority-setting (...) criteria for how scarce, but potentially lifesaving, health care resources should be allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar guidelines have been developed elsewhere. This paper discusses the ethical implications of such rationing and argues that this is an unproven and ethically problematic form of health care rationing. It specifically discusses: (1) how the frailty ascription becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, (2) the problematic use of “frailty” in COVID-19 “triage,” (3) the circularity of the link between age and frailty, (4) indirect discrimination because of the use of a seemingly neutral criterion in health care rationing, and (5) the difficult link between comorbidities and frailty. It is found that there was no research into the use of global frailty scores as a criterion for access to acute treatment before January 2020 and so it is concerning how readily frailty scoring has been adopted to ration access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Existing gerontological frailty scoring systems have not been developed for this purpose, and repurposing them creates significant ethical issues. (shrink)

Rare diseases pose a particular priority setting problem. The UK gives rare diseases special priority in healthcare priority setting. Effectively, the National Health Service is willing to pay much more to gain a quality-adjusted life-year related to a very rare disease than one related to a more common condition. But should rare diseases receive priority in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources? This article develops and evaluates four arguments in favour of such a (...) class='Hi'>priority. These pertain to public values, luck egalitarian distributive justice the epistemic difficulties of obtaining knowledge about rare diseases and the incentives created by a higher willingness to pay. The first is at odds with our knowledge regarding popular opinion. The three other arguments may provide a reason to fund rare diseases generously. However, they are either overinclusive because they would also justify funding for many non-rare diseases or underinclusive in the sense of justifying priority for only some rare diseases. The arguments thus fail to provide a justification that tracks rareness as such. There are no data in this work. (shrink)

Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. Priority setting in developing countries is fraught with uncertainty due to lack of credible information, weak priority setting institutions, and unclear priority setting processes. Efforts to improve priority setting in these contexts have focused on providing information and tools. In this paper (...) we argue that priority setting is a value laden and political process, and although important, the available information and tools are not sufficient to address the priority setting challenges in developing countries. Additional complementary efforts are required. Hence, a strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries should also include: (i) capturing current priority setting practices, (ii) improving the legitimacy and capacity of institutions that set priorities, and (iii) developing fair priority setting processes. (shrink)

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 5, Page 500-510, June 2022.

How should governments balance saving people from very large individual disease burdens (such as an early death) against saving them from middling burdens (such as erectile dysfunction) and minor burdens (such as nail fungus)? This chapter considers this question through an analysis of a priority-setting proposal in the Netherlands, on which avoiding a multitude of middling burdens takes priority over saving one person from early death, but no number of very small burdens can take priority over (...) avoiding one death. It argues that there is some, albeit imperfect, evidence of substantial public support for such a policy. Furthermore, it provides a principled rationale for it in terms of respect for the person who faces the largest burden. (shrink)

Much research aimed at developing measures for normative criteria to guide the assessment of healthcare resource allocation decisions has focused on health maximization, equity concerns and more recently approaches based on health capabilities. However, a widely embraced idea is that health resources should be allocated to meet health needs. Little attention has been given to the principle of need which is often mentioned as an alternative independent criteria that could be used to guide healthcare evaluations. This paper develops a model (...) and indicator of need satisfaction that aggregates the health needs of a population in a particular time period into a single measure that weights individual health needs by the severity of their ill health. The paper provides a first step towards formalizing the principle of need as a measurable objective for healthcare policy and we discuss some challenges for future research, including incorporating the duration of time into need-based health evaluations. (shrink)

Explicit forms of rationing have already been implemented in some countries, and many of these prioritization systems resort to Norman Daniels’ “accountability for reasonableness” methodology. However, a question still remains: is “accountability for reasonableness” not only legitimate but also fair? The objective of this paper is to try to adjust “accountability for reasonableness” to the World Health Organization’s holistic view of health and propose an evolutionary perspective in relation to the “normal” functioning standard proposed by Norman Daniels. To accomplish this (...) purpose the authors depart from the “normal” functioning standard to a model that promotes effective opportunity for everyone in health care access, because even within the “normal” functioning criteria some treatments and medical interventions should have priority upon others. Equal opportunity function is a mathematical function that helps to hierarchize moral relevant necessities in health care according to this point of view. It is concluded, first, that accountability for reasonableness is an extremely valuable tool to address the issue of setting limits in health care; second, that what is called in this paper “equal opportunity function” might reflect how accountability for reasonableness results in fair limit-setting decisions; and third, that this methodology must be further specified to best achieve fair limit-setting decisions. Indeed, when resources are especially scarce the methodology suggested in this paper might allow not only prioritizing in an “all or nothing” basis but can contribute to a hierarchy system of priorities in health care. (shrink)

Medical criteria rooted in evidence-based medicine are often seen as a value-neutral ‘trump card’ which puts paid to any further debate about setting priorities for treatment. On this argument, doctors should stop providing treatment at the point when it becomes medically futile, and that is also the threshold at which the health purchaser should stop purchasing. This paper offers three kinds of ethical criteria as a counterweight to analysis based solely on medical criteria. The first set of arguments concerns (...) futility, probability and utility; the second, justice and fairness; the third, consent and competence. The argument is illustrated by two recent case studies about futility and priority-setting: the US example of ‘Baby Ryan’ and the UK case of ‘Child B’. (shrink)