Priority setting in health care: on the relation between reasonable choices on the micro-level and the macro-level

Article

Abstract

There has been much discussion about how to obtain legitimacy at macro-level priority setting in health care by use of fair procedures, but how should we consider priority setting by individual clinicians or health workers at the micro-level? Despite the fact that just health care totally hinges upon their decisions, surprisingly little attention seems being paid to the legitimacy of these decisions. This paper addresses the following question: what are the conditions that have to be met in order to ensure that individual claims on health care are well aligned with an overall concept of just health care? Drawing upon a distinction between individual and aggregated needs, I argue that even though we assume the legitimacy of macro-level guidelines, this legitimacy is not directly transferable to decisions at micro-level simply by adherence to the guidelines’ recommendation. Further, I argue that individual claims are subject to the formal principle of equality and the demands of vertical and horizontal equity in a way that gives context- and patient-related equity concerns precedence over equity concerns captured at the macro-level. I conclude that if we aim to achieve just health care, we need to develop a complementary framework for legitimising individual judgment of patients’ claims on health care resources. Moreover, I suggest the basic structure of such a framework.

Keywords

Clinical guidelines Collective deliberation Equality Framework Health care need Horizontal equity Judgment Priority setting Reasonableness Vertical equity 

References

  1. 1.
    Klein, Rudolf. 1993. Dimensions of rationing: Who should do what? BMJ 307: 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Backer, Guy, et al. 2003. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation 10 (Supplement): 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helsetilsynet: Retningslinjer for retningslinjer. Prosess og metode for utvikling og implementering av faglige retningslinjer. 2002. Statens Helsetilsyn, Norway.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniels, Norman. 2000. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 321: 1300–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniels, Norman, and James E. Sabin. 2002. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein, Rudolph. 2005. A middle way for rationing healthcare resources. BMJ 330: 1340–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanenbaum, Sandra J. 1993. What physicians know. New England Journal of Medicine 329: 1268–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sackett, David L., et al. 1996. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312: 71–72.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culyer, Anthony J., and Adam Wagstaff. 1993. Equity and equality in health and health care. Journal of Health Economics 12: 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasman, Andreas, Tony Hope, and Lars Peter Østerdal. 2006. Health care need: Three interpretations. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liss, Per Erik. 1995. Paper three: Needs assessment: Handle with care!. Health Care Analysis 3: 312–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniels, Norman. 1996. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norheim, Ole Frithjof. 1999. Healthcare rationing—are additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines? BMJ 319: 1426–1429.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norheim, Ole Frithjof. 2003. Norway. In International study on priority setting and accountability for reasonableness, ed. Chris Ham and Glenn Robert, 99–114. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aristotle. 1984. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (trans. Hippocrates G. Apostle.). Grinnell, Iowa: The Peripatetic Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gosepath, Stefan. 2005. Equality. March 22, 2007: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/equality/.
  18. 18.
    Culyer, Anthony J. 2001. Equity—some theory and its policy implications. Journal of Medical Ethics 27: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mooney, Gavin, and Stephan Jan. 1997. Vertical equity: Weighting outcomes? Or establishing procedures? Health Policy 39: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Public Health and Primary Health CareUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.The Center for the Studies of the Sciences and the HumanitiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations