Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been suggested that focusing on procedures when setting priorities for health care avoids the conflicts that arise when attempting to agree on principles. A prominent example of this approach is “accountability for reasonableness.” We will argue that the same problem arises with procedural accounts; reasonable people will disagree about central elements in the process. We consider the procedural condition of appeal process and three examples of conflicts over coverage decisions: a patients’ rights law in Norway, health technologies coverage recommendations in the UK, and care withheld by HMOs in the US. In each case a process is at the center of controversy, illustrating the difficulties in establishing procedures that are widely accepted as legitimate. Further work must be done in developing procedural frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ham, C. 1997. Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy 42: 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Danish Council of Ethics. 1997. Priority-setting in the health service.

  3. Daniels, N. 1999. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. Journal of Urban Health 76: 176–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Daniels, N. 2001. Justice, health, and healthcare. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26: 303–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1998. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 17: 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 2002. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Martin, D.K., P.A. Singer, and M. Bernstein. 2003. Access to intensive care unit beds for neurosurgery patients: A qualitative case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 74: 1299–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mielke, J., D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: Qualitative case study. Critical Care Medicine 31: 2764–2768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rocker, G.M., D.J. Cook, D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Seasonal bed closures in an intensive care unit: A qualitative study. Journal of Critical Care 18: 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibson, J.L., D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2004. Setting priorities in health care organizations: Criteria, processes, and parameters of success. BMC Health Services Research 4: 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, D.K., D. Hollenberg, S. MacRae, S. Madden, and P. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: A qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 66: 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reeleder, D., D.K. Martin, C. Keresztes, and P.A. Singer. 2005. What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions? BMC Health Services Research 5: 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Singer, P.A., D.K. Martin, M. Giacomini, and L. Purdy. 2000. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: Qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 321: 1316–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin, D.K., N. Walton, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in surgery: Improve the process and share the learning. World Journal of Surgery 27: 962–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mielke, J., and K.K. Kalangu. 2003. The surgeon and human immunodeficiency virus. World Journal of Surgery 27: 967–971. discussion 971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin, D., K. Shulman, P. Santiago-Sorrell, and P. Singer. 2003. Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 8: 197–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bell, J.A., S. Hyland, T. DePellegrin, R.E. Upshur, M. Bernstein, and D.K. Martin. 2004. Sars and hospital priority setting: A qualitative case study and evaluation. BMC Health Services Research 4: 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kapiriri, L., and O.F. Norheim. 2004. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: Exploration of stakeholders’ values. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82: 172–179.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Daniels, N. 2005. Fair process in patient selection for antiretroviral treatment in WHO’s goal of 3 by 5. Lancet 366: 169–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Syse, A. 2000. Norway: Valid (as opposed to informed) consent. Lancet 356: 1347–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Norwegian Government. 1999. Patients’ Rights Act (July 2). Available at http://home.online.no/~wkeim/patients_rights_act.htm (accessed August 17, 2005).

  23. Cookson, R., D. McDaid, and A. Maynard. 2001. Wrong sign, NICE mess: Is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? British Medical Journal 323: 743–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. NICE. 2004a. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (April). Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf (accessed August 17, 2005).

  25. NICE. 2004b. Technology appraisal process: Guidance for appellants (April). Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Guide_for_Appellants.pdf (accessed April 25, 2005).

  26. Ellis, S.J. 2001. The failings of NICE. Doctors treating patients with multiple sclerosis will lose confidence in NICE. British Medical Journal 322: 491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ellis, S.J. 2002. Bad decision NICE. Lancet 359: 447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hartung, H.P. 2000. NICE and drugs for multiple sclerosis. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Lancet 356: 1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kernick, D. 2002. Beta interferon, NICE, and rationing. British Journal of General Practice 52: 784–785.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mayor, S. 2001. Health department to fund interferon beta despite institute’s ruling. British Medical Journal 323: 1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kmietowicz, Z. 2001. Reform of NICE needed to boost its credibility. British Medical Journal 323: 1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Supreme Court of the United States. 2004. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (decided June 21).

  33. Netter, W. 2000. ERISA: U.S. Supreme Court holds treatment decisions made by HMO physician-employees do not breach fiduciary duty. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28: 309–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mariner, W.K. 2004. The Supreme Court’s limitation of managed-care liability. New England Journal of Medicine 351: 1347–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hammer, P.J. 2001. Pegram v. Herdrich: On peritonitis, preemption, and the elusive goal of managed care accountability. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26: 767–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Williams-Jones, B., and M.M. Burgess. 2004. Social contract theory and just decision making: Lessons from genetic testing for the BRCA mutations. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14: 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Emanuel, E.J. 2002. Book review: Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New England Journal of Medicine 347: 953–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Lindsay M. Sabik & Reidar K. Lie

Authors
  1. Lindsay M. Sabik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reidar K. Lie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reidar K. Lie.

Additional information

The opinions expressed are the authors’ own. They do not reflect any position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, US Public Health Service, or Department of Health and Human Services. This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH Clinical Center.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sabik, L.M., Lie, R.K. Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts. Theor Med Bioeth 29, 73–85 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9062-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9062-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation