Distributive Justice and Priority Setting in Health Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 53-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolonda Y. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Priority Setting

scholarly journals Investigating Public Values in Health Care Priority – Chileans´ Preference for National Health Care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Nunez ◽  
Chunhuei Chi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Population Sample ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
National Health Care ◽  
Doctor Communication

Abstract Background: This study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs. Methods: We applied an innovative survey method for sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people´s preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1,142 individuals. Results: More than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system. Conclusions: This study shade lights on how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

scholarly journals Investigating Public Values in Health Care Priority – Chileans´ Preferences for National Health Care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Núñez ◽  
Chunhuei Chi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Population Sample ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
National Health Care ◽  
Doctor Communication

Abstract Background: This study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs. Methods: We applied an innovative survey method developed for this study to sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people´s preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1,142 individuals. Results: More than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system. Conclusions: This study shade lights on how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

scholarly journals Investigating public values in health care priority – Chileans´ preference for national health care

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Núñez ◽  
Chunhuei Chi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Population Sample ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
National Health Care ◽  
Doctor Communication

Abstract Background This study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs. Methods We applied an innovative survey method developed for this study to sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people’s preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1142 individuals. Results More than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system. Conclusions This study shows how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review

Health Policy ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Mitton ◽  
Neale Smith ◽  
Stuart Peacock ◽  
Brian Evoy ◽  
Julia Abelson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

scholarly journals Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 212
Author(s):  
Hakimeh Mostafavi ◽  
Arash Rashidian ◽  
Mohammad Arab ◽  
Mohammad R. V. Mahdavi ◽  
Kioomars Ashtarian
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health System ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Social Values ◽  
City Council ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Health Priority ◽  
The Social

<p><strong>Background:</strong> Health systems, as part of the social system, consider public values. This study was conducted to examine the role of social values in the health priority setting in the Iranian health system.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> In this qualitative case study, three main data sources were used: literature, national documents, and key informants who were purposefully selected from health care organizations and other related institutions. Data was analyzed and interpreted using the Clark-Weale Framework.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> According to our results, the public indirectly participates in decision-making. The public representatives participate in the meetings of the health priority setting as parliament members, representatives of some unions, members of the city council, and donors. The transparency of the decisions and the accountability of the decision makers are low. Decision makers only respond to complaints of the Audit Court and the Inspection Organization. Individual choice, although respected in hospitals and clinics, is limited in health care networks because of the referral system. Clinical effectiveness is considered in insurance companies and some hospitals. There are no technical abilities to determine the cost-effectiveness of health technologies; however, some international experiences are employed. Equity and solidarity are considered in different levels of the health system.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Social values are considered in the health priority decisions in limited ways. It seems that the lack of an appropriate value-based framework for priority setting and also the lack of public participation are the major defects of the health system. It is recommended that health policymakers invite different groups of people and stakeholders for active involvement in health priority decisions. </p>

Implementing accountability for reasonableness – the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDRA JANSSON
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Social Learning ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
A Priority

AbstractThis paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the ‘principally important’ decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.

Technology assessment, priority setting and appropriate care in Dutch health care

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Berg ◽  
Tom van der Grinten ◽  
Niek Klazinga
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Technol Assess Health ◽  
Appropriate Care ◽  
Dutch Health ◽  
Dutch Health Care

References 8, 29, and 32 are incorrect as they appear in the article entitled “Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care,” by Marc Berg, Tom van der Grinten, and Niek Klazinga (Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20[1]:35-43). They should appear as follows: 8. Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, et al. Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002;11:1933-1939.29. Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Leufkens HG, Busschbach JJ, et al. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;2:149-160.32. Van der Grinten TED. Hervorming van de gezondheidszorg. Zal het deze keer wel lukken? Beleid & Maatschappij 2002;3:172-176.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document