Abstract
Norman Daniels' and James Sabin's theory of “accountability for reasonableness” (A4R) is a much discussed account of due process for decision-making on health care priority setting. Central to the theory is the acceptance that people may justifiably disagree on what reasons it is relevant to consider when priorities are made, but that there is a core set of reasons, that all centre on fairness, on which there will be no disagreement. A4R is designed as an institutional decision process which will ensure that only those reasons which everybody will agree are relevant and appropriate form part of decision-making. The argument which we will put forward in this paper questions whether it is a simple matter to delineate the core set of reasons and claims that it is a potential problem in A4R that it does not provide an indication of the exact content of this process.
The paper first briefly outlines the content of A4R. It is argued that disagreement on what services should be high priorities cannot be resolved solely with a reference to “due process.” In order to retain consistency over time, decision-makers are required to agree and articulate what reasons qualify as relevant and how conflicting reasons are to be balanced in the course of the process.
The second and main part of the paper then considers how the reason of “solidarity” can be handled within the A4R framework, and it is shown that deciding whether solidarity should be admitted to the core set of allowable reasons is not a simple matter.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K.J. (1963) Welfare Economics of Medical Care. The American Economic Review 53(5), 941–973.
Cavanagh, M. (2002) Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulter, A., and Ham, C. (eds.) (2000) The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Daniels, N., Light, D.W., and Caplan R.L. (1996) Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, N. (2000) Accountability for Reasonableness: Establishing Fair Process for Priority Setting is Easier Than Agreeing on Principles. British Medical Journal. 321, 1300–1.
Daniels, N., and Sabin, J. (1997) Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 4, 303–350.
Daniels, N., and Sabin, J. (1998a) The Ethics of Accountability in Managed Care Reform. Health Affairs, 17, 50–63.
Daniels, N., and Sabin, J. (1998b) Last Chance Therapies and Managed Care: Pluralism, Fair Procedures, and Legitimacy. Hastings Center Report 28(2), 27–41.
Daniels, N., and Sabin, J., (1998c) The Ethics of Accountability In Managed Care Reform. Health Affairs 17(5), 50–64.
Daniels, N., and Sabin, J. (2002) Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enthoven, A.C. (1990) What Can Europeans Learn from Americans? In OECD Social Policy Studies No. 7–-Health Care. Systems in Transition. Paris: OECD, (57–71).
Grundtvig, N.F.S (1820). Danmarks Tróst–-Langt Hójere Bjerge. In Grundtvig, NFS. Sange Til Den 10de April 1820. Kóbenhavn.
Ham, C., and Robert, G. (eds.) (2003) Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Holm, S. (2000) Development in the Nordic Countries–-Goodbye to the Simple Solutions. In: A. Coulter, and Ham, C. (eds.), The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham 2000, 29–37.
Navarro, V. (1989) Why Some Countries Have National Health Insurance, Others Have National Health Services, and the United States Has Neither. International Journal of Health Services 19(3), 383–404.
Sass, H.-M. (1992) Introduction: The Principle of Solidarity in Health Care Policy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy; 17(4), 367–370.
Singer, P.A., Martin, D.K., Giacomini, M., and Purdy, L. (2000) Priority Setting for New Technologies in Medicine: A Qualitative Study. British Medical Journal 321, 1316–1318
Ten Have, H. and Keasberry, H. (1992) Equity and Solidarity: The Context of Health Care in The Netherlands. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17(4), 463–478.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hasman, A., Holm, S. Accountability for Reasonableness: Opening the Black Box of Process. Health Care Anal 13, 261–273 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-005-8124-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-005-8124-2