Health Care Analysis 1:1-20 (2019)

Authors
Erik Gustavsson
Linkoping University
Mathias Barra
Akershus University Hospital
Abstract
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.
Keywords priority setting  severity  deontology  utilitariansim  prioritariansim  health policy  public health
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10728-019-00371-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts.W. B. Gallie - 1956 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1):167-198.
Essentially Contested Concepts.W. B. Gallie - 1994 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14 (1):3-18.
Justice, Health, and Healthcare.Norman Daniels - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):2 – 16.

View all 30 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Should Rare Diseases Get Special Treatment?Monica Magalhaes - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (2):86-92.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Priority Setting, Cost-Effectiveness, and the Affordable Care Act.Govind Persad - 2015 - American Journal of Law and Medicine 41 (1):119-166.
Priority Setting and Evidence Based Purchasing.Lucy Frith - 1999 - Health Care Analysis 7 (2):139-151.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-05-22

Total views
196 ( #58,485 of 2,498,734 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #48,579 of 2,498,734 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes