Can we restrict the health care menu?

Abstract

The case of Britain's National Health Service is used to illuminate the cross-national debate about whether the availability of health care should be restricted and, if so, how this should be done. Traditionally, the NHS relied on implicit rationing by clinicians within budgetary constraints set by government. However, the logic of the 1989 reforms appeared to require explicit decisions about the packages of health care to be provided to local populations. In practice, purchasers have refused to define such packages. Explicit rationing remains very much the exception. Exploring the reasons for this suggests that defining a restricted menu of health care, by adopting a cost-utility approach and excluding specific procedures or forms of treatment on the Oregon model, is only one of many policy options. There is a large repertory of policy tools for balancing demands and resources, ranging from diluting the intensity of treatment to its earlier termination. Given that health care is characterised by uncertainty, lack of information about outcomes and patient heterogeneity, it may therefore be more 'rational' to diffuse decision-making among clinicians and managers than to try to move towards a centrally determined menu of entitlements.