Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: It is impossible to meet all healthcare demands, but an open and fair rationing process may improve the public acceptability of priority setting in healthcare. Decision-making is subject to scrutiny by newspaper media, an important public institution and information source for discussions about rationing. In Norway, healthcare rationing has been subject to public debate both before and after the establishment of "The National System for Managed Introduction of New Health Technologies within the Specialist Health Service" (New Methods) in 2013. AIM: To describe and assess the development of the public debate on Norwegian healthcare rationing through three cases in print media. METHODS: We purposively sampled Norwegian newspaper articles between 2012 and 2018 concerning three reimbursement decisions in the Norwegian system. The reimbursement decisions were ipilimumab (Yervoy, n = 45) against metastatic melanoma, nivolumab (Opdivo, n = 23) against non-small cell lung cancer, and nusinersen (Spinraza, n = 68) against spinal muscular atrophy. Cases were analysed separately using the qualitative method of systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Our analysis highlighted four common themes—money, rationales, patient stories, and process—and a unique theme for each case. Ipilimumab was uniquely themed by rationing rejection, nivolumab by healthcare two-tiering, and Spinraza by patients' rights. We found wide media deliberation among a multitude of stakeholders in all cases. Perceptions of rationing were found to be chiefly aligned with previous empirical research. We found that the media reported more frequently on opposition to rationing compared to findings from previous studies on Norwegian healthcare decision-making attitudes. We think this was influenced by our selection of cases receiving extraordinary media attention, and from media sources being subject to political communication from special interest groups. CONCLUSION: We observed that the introduction of New Methods institutionalised Norwegian ...

Inequality in access and utilization of health services because of socioeconomic status is unfair, and it should be monitored and corrected with appropriate remedial action. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the distribution of benefits from public spending on health care across socioeconomic groups in Ethiopia using a benefit incidence analysis. We employed health service utilization data from the Living Standard Measurement Survey, recurrent government expenditure data from the Ministry of Finance and health services delivery data from the Ministry of Health's Health Management Information System. We calculated unit subsidy as the ratio of recurrent government health expenditure on a particular service type to the corresponding number of health services visits. The concentration index (CI) was applied to measure inequality in health care utilization and the distribution of the subsidy across socioeconomic groups. We conducted a disaggregated analysis comparing health delivery levels and service types. Furthermore, we used decomposition analysis to measure the percentage contribution of various factors to the overall inequalities. We found that 61% of recurrent government spending on health goes to health centres (HCs), and 74% was spent on outpatient services. Besides, we found a slightly pro-poor public spending on health, with a CI of −0.039, yet the picture was more nuanced when disaggregated by health delivery levels and service types. The subsidy at the hospital level and for inpatient services benefited the wealthier quintiles most. However, at the HC level and for outpatient services, the subsidies were slightly pro-poor. Therefore, an effort is needed in making inpatient and hospital services more equitable by improving the health service utilization of those in the lower quintiles and those in rural areas. Besides, policymakers in Ethiopia should use this evidence to monitor inequity in government spending on health, thereby improving government resources allocation to target the disadvantaged ...

Global Health Priority-Setting provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policy-makers, and clinicians from around the world assess the state of current practice in national and global priority setting, describe new tools and methodologies to address establishing global health priorities, and tackle the most important ethical questions that decision-makers must consider in allocating health resources.

AbstractEthiopia is experiencing an increasing frequency and intensity of slow‐onset and acute disasters caused by climate change, with significant health impacts. Understanding and addressing these impacts involves trade‐offs, which are central to effective priority setting in health and overarching efforts to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite minimal historic greenhouse gas emissions, Ethiopia has been at the forefront of climate action since launching the Climate‐Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) in 2011, a low‐carbon development strategy. To learn from the Ethiopian approach, this paper examines to what extent health has been integrated into the CRGE. We found that the early years of the CRGE prioritized developing the financial basis of the green economy, while the health impacts of climate change have only been tentatively considered to date and remain detached from broader health strategies. Further analysis of climate adaptation measures, "health co‐benefits," and reducing specific vulnerabilities of the health sector could help improve health and build climate resilience.

South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment.Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders' views and evidences of all sorts.We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa.

COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be scarce for years to come. Many countries, from India to the U.K., have demonstrated vaccine nationalism. What are the ethical limits to this vaccine nationalism? Neither extreme nationalism nor extreme cosmopolitanism is ethically justifiable. Instead, we propose the fair priority for residents (FPR) framework, in which governments can retain COVID-19 vaccine doses for their residents only to the extent that they are needed to maintain a noncrisis level of mortality while they are implementing reasonable public health interventions. Practically, a noncrisis level of mortality is that experienced during a bad influenza season, which society considers an acceptable background risk. Governments take action to limit mortality from influenza, but there is no emergency that includes severe lockdowns. This "flu-risk standard" is a nonarbitrary and generally accepted heuristic. Mortality above the flu-risk standard justifies greater governmental interventions, including retaining vaccines for a country's own citizens over global need. The precise level of vaccination needed to meet the flu-risk standard will depend upon empirical factors related to the pandemic. This links the ethical principles to the scientific data emerging from the emergency. Thus, the FPR framework recognizes that governments should prioritize procuring vaccines for their country when doing so is necessary to reduce mortality to noncrisis flu-like levels. But after that, a government is obligated to do its part to share vaccines to reduce risks of mortality for people in other countries. We consider and reject objections to the FPR framework based on a country: (1) having developed a vaccine, (2) raising taxes to pay for vaccine research and purchase, (3) wanting to eliminate economic and social burdens, and (4) being ineffective in combating COVID-19 through public health interventions.

COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be scarce for years to come. Many countries, from India to the U.K., have demonstrated vaccine nationalism. What are the ethical limits to this vaccine nationalism? Neither extreme nationalism nor extreme cosmopolitanism is ethically justifiable. Instead, we propose the fair priority for residents (FPR) framework, in which governments can retain COVID-19 vaccine doses for their residents only to the extent that they are needed to maintain a noncrisis level of mortality while they are implementing reasonable public health interventions. Practically, a noncrisis level of mortality is that experienced during a bad influenza season, which society considers an acceptable background risk. Governments take action to limit mortality from influenza, but there is no emergency that includes severe lockdowns. This "flu-risk standard" is a nonarbitrary and generally accepted heuristic. Mortality above the flu-risk standard justifies greater governmental interventions, including retaining vaccines for a country's own citizens over global need. The precise level of vaccination needed to meet the flu-risk standard will depend upon empirical factors related to the pandemic. This links the ethical principles to the scientific data emerging from the emergency. Thus, the FPR framework recognizes that governments should prioritize procuring vaccines for their country when doing so is necessary to reduce mortality to noncrisis flu-like levels. But after that, a government is obligated to do its part to share vaccines to reduce risks of mortality for people in other countries. We consider and reject objections to the FPR framework based on a country: (1) having developed a vaccine, (2) raising taxes to pay for vaccine research and purchase, (3) wanting to eliminate economic and social burdens, and (4) being ineffective in combating COVID-19 through public health interventions.

BackgroundThe UN will formulate ambitious Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, including one for health. Feasible goals with some quantifiable, measurable targets can influence governments. We propose, as a quatitative health target, "Avoid in each country 40% of premature deaths (under-70 deaths that would be seen in the 2030 population at 2010 death rates), and improve health care at all ages". Targeting overall mortality and improved health care ignores no modifiable cause of death, nor any cause of disability that is treatable (or also causes many deaths). 40% fewer premature deaths would be important in all countries, but implies very different priorities in different populations. Reinforcing this target for overall mortality in each country are four global subtargets for 2030: avoid two-thirds of child and maternal deaths; two-thirds of tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria deaths; a third of premature deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs); and a third of those from other causes (other communicable diseases, undernutrition, and injuries). These challenging subtargets would halve under-50 deaths, avoid a third of the (mainly NCD) deaths at ages 50-69 years, and so avoid 40% of under-70 deaths. To help assess feasibility, we review mortality rates and trends in the 25 most populous countries, in four country income groupings, and worldwide.MethodsUN sources yielded overall 1970-2010 mortality trends. WHO sources yielded cause-specific 2000-10 trends, standardised to country-specific 2030 populations; decreases per decade of 42% or 18% would yield 20-year reductions of two-thirds or a third.ResultsThroughout the world, except in countries where the effects of HIV or political disturbances predominated, mortality decreased substantially from 1970-2010, particularly in childhood. From 2000-10, under-70 age-standardised mortality rates decreased 19% (with the low-income and lower-middle-income countries having the greatest absolute gains). The proportional decreases per decade (2000-10) were: 34% at ages 0-4 years; 17% at ages 5-49 years; 15% at ages 50-69 years; 30% for communicable, perinatal, maternal, or nutritional causes; 14% for NCDs; and 13% for injuries (accident, suicide, or homicide).InterpretationModerate acceleration of the 2000-10 proportional decreases in mortality could be feasible, achieving the targeted 2030 disease-specific reductions of two-thirds or a third. If achieved, these reductions avoid about 10 million of the 20 million deaths at ages 0-49 years that would be seen in 2030 at 2010 death rates, and about 17 million of the 41 million such deaths at ages 0-69 years. Such changes could be achievable by 2030, or soon afterwards, at least in areas free of war, other major effects of political disruption, or a major new epidemic.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Centre for Global Health Research, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.