Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation - A Normative Analysis
- PMID: 29935130
- PMCID: PMC6015508
- DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.125
Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation - A Normative Analysis
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.
Keywords: Ethics; Priority Setting; Ranking; Reimbursement.
© 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.
Similar articles
-
[Rationalization, rationing, prioritization: terminology and ethical approaches to the allocation of limited resources in hematology/oncology].Onkologie. 2011;34 Suppl 1:2-5. doi: 10.1159/000323063. Epub 2011 Jan 17. Onkologie. 2011. PMID: 21389761 German.
-
Priority setting and the ethics of resource allocation within VA healthcare facilities: results of a survey.Organ Ethic. 2008 Fall-Winter;4(2):83-96. Organ Ethic. 2008. PMID: 18839751
-
Attitudes towards priority-setting and rationing in healthcare -- an exploratory survey of Swedish medical students.Scand J Public Health. 2009 Mar;37(2):122-30. doi: 10.1177/1403494808100276. Epub 2009 Jan 13. Scand J Public Health. 2009. PMID: 19141543
-
[Rationing, prioritisation, rationalizing: Significance in everyday intensive care].Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2015 Nov;110(8):609-13. doi: 10.1007/s00063-014-0437-1. Epub 2014 Nov 21. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2015. PMID: 25410664 Review. German.
-
Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework.Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Oct;10(5):539-52. doi: 10.1586/erp.10.66. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010. PMID: 20950070 Review.
Cited by
-
Co-payment for Unfunded Additional Care in Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems: Ethical Issues.J Bioeth Inq. 2019 Dec;16(4):515-524. doi: 10.1007/s11673-019-09924-2. Epub 2019 Jun 24. J Bioeth Inq. 2019. PMID: 31236758 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Socialdepartementet Socialdepartementet. Prioriteringar inom hälso- och sjukvården. Vol Proposition Stockholm: 1996;97:60.
-
- NOU. Prioritering på ny - Gjennomgang av retningslinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste. Vol 1997:18. Oslo1997.
-
- Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-8-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical