Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2016 May 11:14:75.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4.

Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services

Ole F Norheim  1   2
Affiliations
Editorial

Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services

Ole F Norheim. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Priority setting is inevitable on the path towards universal health coverage. All countries experience a gap between their population's health needs and what is economically feasible for governments to provide. Can priority setting ever be fair and ethically acceptable? Fairness requires that unmet health needs be addressed, but in a fair order. Three criteria for priority setting are widely accepted among ethicists: cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse-off, and financial risk protection. Thus, a fair health system will expand coverage for cost-effective services and give extra priority to those benefiting the worse-off, whilst at the same time providing high financial risk protection. It is considered unacceptable to treat people differently according to their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, social status, or place of residence. Inequalities in health outcomes associated with such personal characteristics are therefore unfair and should be minimized. This commentary also discusses a third group of contested criteria, including rare diseases, small health benefits, age, and personal responsibility for health, subsequently rejecting them. In conclusion, countries need to agree on criteria and establish transparent and fair priority setting processes.

Keywords: Ethics; Global health; Health economics; Health technology assessment; Priority setting; Universal health coverage.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Murray CJ, Barber RM, Foreman KJ, Ozgoren AA, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990-2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet. 2015;386(10009):2145–91. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Norheim OF, Jha P, Admasu K, Godal T, Hum R, Kruk M, et al. Avoiding 40 % of the premature deaths in each country, 2010–30: review of national mortality trends to help quantify the UN Sustainable Development Goal for Health. Lancet. 2015;385(9964):239–52. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61591-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peto R, Lopes AD, Norheim OF. Halving premature death. Science. 2014;345(6202):1272. doi: 10.1126/science.1259971. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chan M. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Health Syst Ref. 2016;2(1):5–7. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2015.1111288. - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Bank . Investing in Health. World Development Report 1993. Oxford: Published for the World Bank, Oxford University Press; 1993.

Publication types