Health Care Analysis

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 301–308 | Cite as

Decisions on Inclusion in the Swedish Basic Health Care Package—Roles of Cost-Effectiveness and Need

  • Lars Bernfort


Background: Inclusion or not of a treatment strategy in the publicly financed health care is really a matter of prioritisation. In Sweden priority setting decisions are governed by law in which it is stated that decisions should be guided by firstly the principle of need and secondly the principle of cost-effectiveness.

Objective: The purpose of the paper is to discuss and illustrate the roles of need and cost-effectiveness in decisions on inclusion or not of treatment strategies in the publicly financed health care.

Methods: The theoretical backgrounds of need and cost-effectiveness are discussed in short, both with respect to their meaning and to their potential roles in decisions on priority setting. Four treatment strategies, Viagra, Rivastigmine, statins, and lung transplants, are analysed with respect to whether either cost-effectiveness or need, or both, seem to have played a role in the decisions of inclusion or not in the basic health care package.

Results: Both need and cost-effectiveness are important and should be important aspects when making decisions on priority setting. From the examples of the four treatment strategies it seems that decisions are almost exclusively made with reference to the principle of need.

Conclusions: The most evident conclusion to be drawn from this study is that decisions on priority setting are almost solely based on the principle of need. This implies that the principle of cost-effectiveness is given very little space, which is a problem as this means an obvious risk of inefficient resource use.

priority setting basic health care health care resources need cost-effectiveness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bentham, J. (1988) The Principles of Morals and Legislation (new ed.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  2. Daniels, N. (1985) Just Health Care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hirschleifer, J., and Glazer, A. (1992) Price Theory and Aplications (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Klose, T. (1999) The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care. Health Policy 47, 97-123.Google Scholar
  5. Liss, P.-E. (1993) Health care need. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  6. Liss, P.-E. (1999) Setting Goals in Health Promotion. A Conceptual and Ethical Platform. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3, 169-173.Google Scholar
  7. Luce, B., and Elixhauser, A. (1990) Standards for Socioeconomic Evaluations of Health Care Products and Services. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Luenberger, D.G. (1995) Microeconomic Theory (international ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Mill, J.S. (1969) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. 10). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mooney, G.H. (1977) The Valuation of Human Life. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. Pearce, D.W., and Nash C.A. (1981) The Social Appraisal of Projects. A Text in Cost-Benefit Analysis (4th ed.). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  12. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sahlin, J. (2000) Hälso-och sjukvårdslagen: med kommentarer. [The Swedish Health and Medical Services Act: With Comments] (6th ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.Google Scholar
  14. SOU (1995:5) Priorities in Health Care—Ethics, Economy, Implementation. Final report by the Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Socialdepartementet. [Department of social affairs]. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Bernfort
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Medical Technology AssessmentLinkoping UniversityLinkopingSweden

Personalised recommendations