liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation: A Normative Analysis
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Health Care Analysis. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Boras, Sweden. (Prioriteringscentrum)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0987-7653
2018 (English)In: International Journal of Health Policy and Management, ISSN 2322-5939, E-ISSN 2322-5939, Vol. 7, no 6, p. 532-541Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Priority setting in publicly financed healthcare systems should be guided by ethical norms and other considerations viewed as socially valuable, and we find several different approaches for how such norms and considerations guide priorities in healthcare decision-making. Common to many of these approaches is that interventions are ranked in relation to each other, following the application of these norms and considerations, and that this ranking list is then translated into a coverage scheme. In the literature we find at least two different views on how a ranking list should be translated into coverage schemes: (1) rationing from the bottom where everything below a certain ranking order is rationed; or (2) a relative degree of coverage, where higher ranked interventions are given a relatively larger share of resources than lower ranked interventions according to some “curve of coverage.” 

Methods: The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of how the background set of ethical norms and other considerations support these two views.

 Results: The result of the analysis shows that rationing from the bottom generally gets stronger support if taking background ethical norms seriously, and with regard to the extent the ranking succeeds in realising these norms. However, in non-ideal rankings and to handle variations at individual patient level, there is support for relative coverage at the borderline of what could be covered. A more general relative coverage curve could also be supported if there is a need to generate resources for the healthcare system, by getting patients back into production and getting acceptance for priority setting decisions.

 Conclusion: Hence, different types of reasons support different deviations from rationing from the bottom. And it should be noted that the two latter reasons will imply a cost in terms of not living up to the background set of ethical norms.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Kerman University of Medical Sciences , 2018. Vol. 7, no 6, p. 532-541
Keywords [en]
Priority Setting, Ethics, Ranking, Reimbursement
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-145605DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.125ISI: 000434308400007OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-145605DiVA, id: diva2:1188536
Available from: 2018-03-07 Created: 2018-03-07 Last updated: 2019-06-27

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sandman, Lars
By organisation
Division of Health Care AnalysisFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
In the same journal
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 103 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf