liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation: A Normative Analysis
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Avdelningen för hälso- och sjukvårdsanalys. Linköpings universitet, Medicinska fakulteten. University of Boras, Sweden. (Prioriteringscentrum)ORCID-id: 0000-0003-0987-7653
2018 (engelsk)Inngår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management, ISSN 2322-5939, E-ISSN 2322-5939, Vol. 7, nr 6, s. 532-541Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) 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.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Kerman University of Medical Sciences , 2018. Vol. 7, nr 6, s. 532-541
Emneord [en]
Priority Setting, Ethics, Ranking, Reimbursement
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-145605DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.125ISI: 000434308400007OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-145605DiVA, id: diva2:1188536
Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-03-07 Laget: 2018-03-07 Sist oppdatert: 2019-06-27

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekst

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Sandman, Lars
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 103 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf