Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jun 01;7(6):532-541. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.125.

Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation - A Normative Analysis.

International journal of health policy and management

Lars Sandman

PMID: 29935130 PMCID: PMC6015508 DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.125

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in publicly financed healthcare systems should be guided by ethical norms and other considerations viewed as socially valuable, and we find several different approaches for how such norms and considerations guide priorities in healthcare decision-making. Common to many of these approaches is that interventions are ranked in relation to each other, following the application of these norms and considerations, and that this ranking list is then translated into a coverage scheme. In the literature we find at least two different views on how a ranking list should be translated into coverage schemes: (1) rationing from the bottom where everything below a certain ranking order is rationed; or (2) a relative degree of coverage, where higher ranked interventions are given a relatively larger share of resources than lower ranked interventions according to some "curve of coverage."

METHODS: The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of how the background set of ethical norms and other considerations support these two views.

RESULTS: The result of the analysis shows that rationing from the bottom generally gets stronger support if taking background ethical norms seriously, and with regard to the extent the ranking succeeds in realising these norms. However, in non-ideal rankings and to handle variations at individual patient level, there is support for relative coverage at the borderline of what could be covered. A more general relative coverage curve could also be supported if there is a need to generate resources for the healthcare system, by getting patients back into production and getting acceptance for priority setting decisions.

CONCLUSION: Hence, different types of reasons support different deviations from rationing from the bottom. And it should be noted that the two latter reasons will imply a cost in terms of not living up to the background set of ethical norms.

© 2018 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Keywords: Ethics; Priority Setting; Ranking; Reimbursement

References

1. Value Health. 2016 Jul-Aug;19(5):525-30 - PubMed
2. Health Care Anal. 2014 Mar;22(1):22-35 - PubMed
3. Lancet. 2009 Jan 31;373(9661):423-31 - PubMed
4. Hepatology. 2016 Oct;64(4):1331-42 - PubMed
5. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Oct 11;4(11):711-4 - PubMed
6. Semin Cancer Biol. 2017 Aug;45:58-63 - PubMed
7. Health Policy. 1997 Mar;39(3):241-53 - PubMed
8. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010 Apr 08;8:4 - PubMed
9. Health Policy Plan. 2015 Apr;30(3):345-55 - PubMed
10. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Dec;49(11):1529-39 - PubMed
11. Health Expect. 2002 Jun;5(2):148-55 - PubMed
12. J Med Ethics. 2016 Sep;42(9):559-65 - PubMed
13. JAMA. 1991 May 1;265(17):2218-25 - PubMed
14. J Med Ethics. 2016 Jan;42(1):22-5 - PubMed
15. Health Care Anal. 2017 Mar;25(1):21-33 - PubMed

MeSH terms

• Delivery of Health Care / organization & administration
• Health Care Rationing / ethics
• Health Priorities / ethics
• Humans
• Social Norms*

Publication Types

• Journal Article