Jan Abel Olsen
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198794837
- eISBN:
- 9780191836329
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198794837.001.0001
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
Principles in Health Economics and Policy, second edition, is a concise introduction to health economics and its application to health policy. It introduces the subject of economics, explains the ...
More
Principles in Health Economics and Policy, second edition, is a concise introduction to health economics and its application to health policy. It introduces the subject of economics, explains the fundamental failures in the market for healthcare, and discusses the concepts of equity and fairness when applied to health and healthcare. The book takes a globally relevant, policy-oriented approach that emphasizes the application of economic analysis to universal health policy issues in an accessible manner. It explores four principal questions facing health policymakers all over the world. These questions are universal in that they are relevant no matter how much money a country spends on its health service, and no matter its political system. The structure of this book reflects the following logical order of these four questions: How should society intervene in the determinants that affect health? How should healthcare be financed? How should healthcare providers be paid? And, how should alternative healthcare programmes be evaluated when setting priorities? The book is an ideal reference guide for everyone interested in how the tools of health economics can be applied when shaping health policy.Less
Principles in Health Economics and Policy, second edition, is a concise introduction to health economics and its application to health policy. It introduces the subject of economics, explains the fundamental failures in the market for healthcare, and discusses the concepts of equity and fairness when applied to health and healthcare. The book takes a globally relevant, policy-oriented approach that emphasizes the application of economic analysis to universal health policy issues in an accessible manner. It explores four principal questions facing health policymakers all over the world. These questions are universal in that they are relevant no matter how much money a country spends on its health service, and no matter its political system. The structure of this book reflects the following logical order of these four questions: How should society intervene in the determinants that affect health? How should healthcare be financed? How should healthcare providers be paid? And, how should alternative healthcare programmes be evaluated when setting priorities? The book is an ideal reference guide for everyone interested in how the tools of health economics can be applied when shaping health policy.
Linda Marks
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- January 2015
- ISBN:
- 9781447304944
- eISBN:
- 9781447311775
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781447304944.001.0001
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health
Drawing on in-depth case studies across England, this book argues that governance and population health are inextricably linked. Using original research, it shows how these links can be illustrated ...
More
Drawing on in-depth case studies across England, this book argues that governance and population health are inextricably linked. Using original research, it shows how these links can be illustrated at a local level through commissioning practice related to health and wellbeing. Exploring the impact of governance on decision-making, Governance, commissioning and public health analyses how principles, such as social justice, and governance arrangements, including standards and targets, influence local strategies and priorities for public health investment. In developing 'public health governance' as a critical concept, the study demonstrates the complexity of the governance landscape for public health and the leadership qualities required to negotiate it. This book is essential reading for students, academics, practitioners and policy-makers with an interest in governance and decision-making for public health.Less
Drawing on in-depth case studies across England, this book argues that governance and population health are inextricably linked. Using original research, it shows how these links can be illustrated at a local level through commissioning practice related to health and wellbeing. Exploring the impact of governance on decision-making, Governance, commissioning and public health analyses how principles, such as social justice, and governance arrangements, including standards and targets, influence local strategies and priorities for public health investment. In developing 'public health governance' as a critical concept, the study demonstrates the complexity of the governance landscape for public health and the leadership qualities required to negotiate it. This book is essential reading for students, academics, practitioners and policy-makers with an interest in governance and decision-making for public health.
Jennifer Prah Ruger
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199559978
- eISBN:
- 9780191721489
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559978.003.0009
- Subject:
- Economics and Finance, Public and Welfare
This chapter addresses the question of priority setting for competing needs when resources are scarce. It begins with the broader societal perspective, because fair decisions must balance spending on ...
More
This chapter addresses the question of priority setting for competing needs when resources are scarce. It begins with the broader societal perspective, because fair decisions must balance spending on health with spending elsewhere. Next, it addresses competing claims within the health budget itself. The health capability paradigm involves reasoned consensus on allocating resources, based on scientific and deliberative processes. The paradigm emphasizes a collaborative and participatory approach to decision‐making that reinforces individual health agency, while at the same time evaluating outcomes in terms of their substantive merit. Medical appropriateness and clinical practice guidelines allow creation of evidence‐based, standardized health policy that provides optimal care and a universal benefits package of goods and services that support central health capabilities. The chapter also discusses efficiency concerns, resource allocation and age, setting limits, rationing, and how to address hard cases, such as medical futility and those invoked by the ‘bottomless pit’ objection or differing conceptions of ‘reasonable accommodation’. A framework for combining technical and ethical rationality for resource allocation is developed.Less
This chapter addresses the question of priority setting for competing needs when resources are scarce. It begins with the broader societal perspective, because fair decisions must balance spending on health with spending elsewhere. Next, it addresses competing claims within the health budget itself. The health capability paradigm involves reasoned consensus on allocating resources, based on scientific and deliberative processes. The paradigm emphasizes a collaborative and participatory approach to decision‐making that reinforces individual health agency, while at the same time evaluating outcomes in terms of their substantive merit. Medical appropriateness and clinical practice guidelines allow creation of evidence‐based, standardized health policy that provides optimal care and a universal benefits package of goods and services that support central health capabilities. The chapter also discusses efficiency concerns, resource allocation and age, setting limits, rationing, and how to address hard cases, such as medical futility and those invoked by the ‘bottomless pit’ objection or differing conceptions of ‘reasonable accommodation’. A framework for combining technical and ethical rationality for resource allocation is developed.
Richard F. Heller
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780198529743
- eISBN:
- 9780191723919
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198529743.003.0010
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter discusses the tensions between the health evidence base and other factors in making prioritization decisions that will influence public health and its practice. It concludes with a ...
More
This chapter discusses the tensions between the health evidence base and other factors in making prioritization decisions that will influence public health and its practice. It concludes with a challenge to develop better methods for incorporating evidence into health priority setting.Less
This chapter discusses the tensions between the health evidence base and other factors in making prioritization decisions that will influence public health and its practice. It concludes with a challenge to develop better methods for incorporating evidence into health priority setting.
Richard F. Heller
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780198529743
- eISBN:
- 9780191723919
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198529743.003.0011
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter discusses the differences between individual and population health priorities. It describes the Population Health Evidence Cycle (Ask the question, Collect the evidence, and Understand ...
More
This chapter discusses the differences between individual and population health priorities. It describes the Population Health Evidence Cycle (Ask the question, Collect the evidence, and Understand and use the evidence) as an organizing structure for how to involve the public in priority setting. A new definition of public health is advocated: “Use of theory, experience, and evidence derived through the population sciences to improve the health of the population in a way that best meets the implicit and explicit needs of the community (the public)”.Less
This chapter discusses the differences between individual and population health priorities. It describes the Population Health Evidence Cycle (Ask the question, Collect the evidence, and Understand and use the evidence) as an organizing structure for how to involve the public in priority setting. A new definition of public health is advocated: “Use of theory, experience, and evidence derived through the population sciences to improve the health of the population in a way that best meets the implicit and explicit needs of the community (the public)”.
Andrew Green
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780198571346
- eISBN:
- 9780191724138
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198571346.003.0008
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter focuses on the key questions of who should set priorities, and how. It also examines the complex issues of the underlying factors and attitudes towards priorities. It argues that ...
More
This chapter focuses on the key questions of who should set priorities, and how. It also examines the complex issues of the underlying factors and attitudes towards priorities. It argues that priority-setting is the most important part of the planning process, and yet it is often not given sufficient attention. It also argues that priority-setting involves a combination of techniques and value judgements.Less
This chapter focuses on the key questions of who should set priorities, and how. It also examines the complex issues of the underlying factors and attitudes towards priorities. It argues that priority-setting is the most important part of the planning process, and yet it is often not given sufficient attention. It also argues that priority-setting involves a combination of techniques and value judgements.
Peter J. Neumann
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195171860
- eISBN:
- 9780199865345
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195171860.003.0008
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter focuses on how international experience in using cost-effectiveness information explicitly to inform formulary decisions provides a remarkable contrast to that of the U.S. For a number ...
More
This chapter focuses on how international experience in using cost-effectiveness information explicitly to inform formulary decisions provides a remarkable contrast to that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.K., Canada, Australia, and other countries have incorporated cost-effectiveness considerations explicitly into processes for making coverage and pricing decisions about drugs and other technologies. Unlike the U.S., where there has been little public acknowledgment of limits to health resources, a number of European countries—including Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands—established national commissions in the 1980s and 1990s to discuss priorities and choices, and to create an explicit framework for limit setting. While these commissions elicited controversy, they were also greeted by public discussions and broad-based support of the need for a limit-setting process.Less
This chapter focuses on how international experience in using cost-effectiveness information explicitly to inform formulary decisions provides a remarkable contrast to that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.K., Canada, Australia, and other countries have incorporated cost-effectiveness considerations explicitly into processes for making coverage and pricing decisions about drugs and other technologies. Unlike the U.S., where there has been little public acknowledgment of limits to health resources, a number of European countries—including Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands—established national commissions in the 1980s and 1990s to discuss priorities and choices, and to create an explicit framework for limit setting. While these commissions elicited controversy, they were also greeted by public discussions and broad-based support of the need for a limit-setting process.
Bhopal Raj S.
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780198568179
- eISBN:
- 9780191724091
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198568179.003.0007
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter argues that similarities between human populations tend to outweigh differences; that the general priorities of health care systems are of great importance to minority ethnic groups. ...
More
This chapter argues that similarities between human populations tend to outweigh differences; that the general priorities of health care systems are of great importance to minority ethnic groups. Public health and health care initiatives must, therefore, cater for the ethnic majority and minority populations simultaneously, with work of equal potential effectiveness and sensitivity. Topics discussed include the nature of priority-setting, and the contribution of pubic health sciences; social values as an underpinning force in priority-setting for ethnic minority groups; the utility and futility of the comparative approach; using epidemiological data to help influence priorities for ethnic minority health; and the impact of choosing priorities on reducing and widening ethnic inequalities in health.Less
This chapter argues that similarities between human populations tend to outweigh differences; that the general priorities of health care systems are of great importance to minority ethnic groups. Public health and health care initiatives must, therefore, cater for the ethnic majority and minority populations simultaneously, with work of equal potential effectiveness and sensitivity. Topics discussed include the nature of priority-setting, and the contribution of pubic health sciences; social values as an underpinning force in priority-setting for ethnic minority groups; the utility and futility of the comparative approach; using epidemiological data to help influence priorities for ethnic minority health; and the impact of choosing priorities on reducing and widening ethnic inequalities in health.
John D. H. Porter, Carolyn Stephens, and Anthony Kessel
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195322934
- eISBN:
- 9780199864416
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195322934.003.0011
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
This chapter explores the ethical issues that arise in the course of undertaking epidemiological and international health research, focusing on ethical issues that the researcher inevitably has to ...
More
This chapter explores the ethical issues that arise in the course of undertaking epidemiological and international health research, focusing on ethical issues that the researcher inevitably has to grapple with during the conduct of research. These include how to plan and develop international research, the value systems of different cultures and countries, particular issues in low-income countries such as those around priority-setting, equity, and consent, external sponsorship and ethical review of research, and what happens when the research is over. It argues that although following guidelines and adhering to the law are both important, it is critical that the researcher approaches the research with an open mind and willing heart. There is no replacement whatsoever for thoughtfulness, sensitivity, and treating people with respect and dignity.Less
This chapter explores the ethical issues that arise in the course of undertaking epidemiological and international health research, focusing on ethical issues that the researcher inevitably has to grapple with during the conduct of research. These include how to plan and develop international research, the value systems of different cultures and countries, particular issues in low-income countries such as those around priority-setting, equity, and consent, external sponsorship and ethical review of research, and what happens when the research is over. It argues that although following guidelines and adhering to the law are both important, it is critical that the researcher approaches the research with an open mind and willing heart. There is no replacement whatsoever for thoughtfulness, sensitivity, and treating people with respect and dignity.
Ole F. Norheim
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199931392
- eISBN:
- 9780199345731
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199931392.003.0015
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Some authors have suggested that inequality in health at population level could be explored by using inequality measures derived from measurement of income inequality. Would it make sense to ...
More
Some authors have suggested that inequality in health at population level could be explored by using inequality measures derived from measurement of income inequality. Would it make sense to substitute income with health in measures such as the Gini or Atkinson’s index of inequality? The aim of this chapter is to explore if Atkinson’s index of inequality can help us understand trade-offs in health care priority setting, and if yes, how to respond to possible objections to this use. Measures of economic inequality can help us understand trade-offs in health care priority setting. I argue that Atkinson’s index of inequality and the achievement index are able to: a) capture distributive concerns in cases involving inequality in the age of death; b) measure impact of population level interventions (e.g. targeting under-five mortality); c) capture distributive concerns for the worst off; and d) provide an alternative perspective on the disability paradox encountered by cost-utility analysis. Limitations to this approach include distributions involving small health benefits at the beginning of life (the incomplete lives argument) and at the end of life (a special concern for palliative care for terminally ill patients regardless of how much health they have achieved previously). The univariate measures discussed in this paper is only concerned with the distribution of health itself. Additional and normatively relevant types of information are captured in bivariate and multivariate measures.Less
Some authors have suggested that inequality in health at population level could be explored by using inequality measures derived from measurement of income inequality. Would it make sense to substitute income with health in measures such as the Gini or Atkinson’s index of inequality? The aim of this chapter is to explore if Atkinson’s index of inequality can help us understand trade-offs in health care priority setting, and if yes, how to respond to possible objections to this use. Measures of economic inequality can help us understand trade-offs in health care priority setting. I argue that Atkinson’s index of inequality and the achievement index are able to: a) capture distributive concerns in cases involving inequality in the age of death; b) measure impact of population level interventions (e.g. targeting under-five mortality); c) capture distributive concerns for the worst off; and d) provide an alternative perspective on the disability paradox encountered by cost-utility analysis. Limitations to this approach include distributions involving small health benefits at the beginning of life (the incomplete lives argument) and at the end of life (a special concern for palliative care for terminally ill patients regardless of how much health they have achieved previously). The univariate measures discussed in this paper is only concerned with the distribution of health itself. Additional and normatively relevant types of information are captured in bivariate and multivariate measures.
Ole F. Norheim, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, and Joseph Millum (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- December 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190912765
- eISBN:
- 9780190912796
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190912765.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of ...
More
Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children’s educational attainment, or should they just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority-setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? This book provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policymakers, 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.Less
Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children’s educational attainment, or should they just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority-setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? This book provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policymakers, 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.
David J. Hunter
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9781861349293
- eISBN:
- 9781447303855
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781861349293.003.0005
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health
This chapter examines rationing and priority setting in the health care sector. It investigates why rationing is no longer much discussed in contemporary health policy debates, while it was on every ...
More
This chapter examines rationing and priority setting in the health care sector. It investigates why rationing is no longer much discussed in contemporary health policy debates, while it was on every policy maker's lips just a decade ago. It explores how the issues of rationing and priority setting are being addressed in health systems that continue to have to manage growing demand with limited resources.Less
This chapter examines rationing and priority setting in the health care sector. It investigates why rationing is no longer much discussed in contemporary health policy debates, while it was on every policy maker's lips just a decade ago. It explores how the issues of rationing and priority setting are being addressed in health systems that continue to have to manage growing demand with limited resources.
Anthony M. Bertelli and Peter John
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199663972
- eISBN:
- 9780191755996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199663972.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
The introductory chapter sets out a sketch of the theory of public policy investment that we develop in this book. Policy portfolios capture the policy domains and levels of attention that parties in ...
More
The introductory chapter sets out a sketch of the theory of public policy investment that we develop in this book. Policy portfolios capture the policy domains and levels of attention that parties in government and electoral competition afford them. They constitute a sophisticated form of responsiveness that acts as an important element of democratic representation. Priority setting in our scheme is conditionally representative, not strictly responsive to public opinion, aware of interrelationships among policy domains, and influenced by non-policy factors important to voters. Conditional representation is distinguished from naïve responsiveness and the idea of statecraft is introduced. A plan of the book is included.Less
The introductory chapter sets out a sketch of the theory of public policy investment that we develop in this book. Policy portfolios capture the policy domains and levels of attention that parties in government and electoral competition afford them. They constitute a sophisticated form of responsiveness that acts as an important element of democratic representation. Priority setting in our scheme is conditionally representative, not strictly responsive to public opinion, aware of interrelationships among policy domains, and influenced by non-policy factors important to voters. Conditional representation is distinguished from naïve responsiveness and the idea of statecraft is introduced. A plan of the book is included.
Jan Abel Olsen
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198794837
- eISBN:
- 9780191836329
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198794837.003.0020
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health, Epidemiology
The final chapter of this book, Chapter 20, goes beyond the two sets of variables that are considered within an economic evaluation: costs and outcomes. The issue here is how equity and fairness can ...
More
The final chapter of this book, Chapter 20, goes beyond the two sets of variables that are considered within an economic evaluation: costs and outcomes. The issue here is how equity and fairness can be included in the decision-making process by allowing different threshold values for quality-adjusted life years depending on the distributive implications of healthcare programmes. The fundamental question is what type of inequality that policymakers would seek to reduce. Five equity principles in health are discussed, and compared using diagrams and numerical examples. These are equality in (1) future health, (2) future health losses, (3) the proportion of future health lost, (4) lifetime health losses, and (5) lifetime health. While the debate on equity weighting generally involves arguments for accepting higher threshold values, the chapter ends with the contexts when lower threshold values would be appropriate, that is, being cost-effective does not imply that the programme should be publicly funded.Less
The final chapter of this book, Chapter 20, goes beyond the two sets of variables that are considered within an economic evaluation: costs and outcomes. The issue here is how equity and fairness can be included in the decision-making process by allowing different threshold values for quality-adjusted life years depending on the distributive implications of healthcare programmes. The fundamental question is what type of inequality that policymakers would seek to reduce. Five equity principles in health are discussed, and compared using diagrams and numerical examples. These are equality in (1) future health, (2) future health losses, (3) the proportion of future health lost, (4) lifetime health losses, and (5) lifetime health. While the debate on equity weighting generally involves arguments for accepting higher threshold values, the chapter ends with the contexts when lower threshold values would be appropriate, that is, being cost-effective does not imply that the programme should be publicly funded.
Jill Russell and Trisha Greenhalgh
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9781847423191
- eISBN:
- 9781447302254
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781847423191.003.0004
- Subject:
- Social Work, Health and Mental Health
Rhetoric, the craft of persuasion, has received a poor press in modern times. Both in everyday language and in much academic debate rhetoric is seen as something dishonest and undesirable, as ...
More
Rhetoric, the craft of persuasion, has received a poor press in modern times. Both in everyday language and in much academic debate rhetoric is seen as something dishonest and undesirable, as manipulation or propaganda, and as such, a disruptive force and a threat to democratic deliberation. However, there is an alternative, affirmative conceptualization of rhetoric, which has its roots in classical scholarship, and is the focus of this chapter. The chapter identifies three fundamental features of rhetoric, and suggests ways in which a rhetorical perspective can enrich the analysis of policy making. Arguments are illustrated with examples from a study of priority setting in primary care, including extracts of talk from the deliberations of a National Health Service Priorities Forum charged with prioritising healthcare resources at a local level, comprising specialists in public health, commissioning and finance managers of the primary care organisation, local general practitioners, and patient representatives.Less
Rhetoric, the craft of persuasion, has received a poor press in modern times. Both in everyday language and in much academic debate rhetoric is seen as something dishonest and undesirable, as manipulation or propaganda, and as such, a disruptive force and a threat to democratic deliberation. However, there is an alternative, affirmative conceptualization of rhetoric, which has its roots in classical scholarship, and is the focus of this chapter. The chapter identifies three fundamental features of rhetoric, and suggests ways in which a rhetorical perspective can enrich the analysis of policy making. Arguments are illustrated with examples from a study of priority setting in primary care, including extracts of talk from the deliberations of a National Health Service Priorities Forum charged with prioritising healthcare resources at a local level, comprising specialists in public health, commissioning and finance managers of the primary care organisation, local general practitioners, and patient representatives.
Martin Gulliford
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- September 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780198837206
- eISBN:
- 9780191873966
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198837206.003.0007
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Public Health
Access to healthcare is concerned with the processes of gaining entry to the healthcare system. Analysis of access focuses on inequality and inequity in the availability and use of health services. ...
More
Access to healthcare is concerned with the processes of gaining entry to the healthcare system. Analysis of access focuses on inequality and inequity in the availability and use of health services. In order to address global inequalities in access to healthcare, international organizations have promoted access to healthcare as a human right. This is linked to the ideal of universal health coverage, with shared funding of some or all healthcare for everyone, as a key strategy for achieving this. At a national level, rational strategies for resource allocation and priority setting are used to promote equity of access in terms of equal access for equal need, but historical inequalities based on the ‘inverse care law’ have been resistant to change. In health systems led by primary care, access to a general practitioner (GP) tends to reduce inequalities in ‘entry’ access to the health system, but the gatekeeping role of GPs may contribute to the development of inequalities of ‘in-system’ access. Wide variations in the utilization of both primary and secondary care services are indicative of access inequalities, but these variations may sometimes reflect clinical uncertainty or poor-quality care. Access inequalities may also arise from personal, social, and cultural barriers experienced by patients in accessing healthcare. These barriers typically represent more severe obstacles for marginalized groups in the population. Promoting equity means ensuring that services are responsive and acceptable to all groups, including those with stigmatized conditions.Less
Access to healthcare is concerned with the processes of gaining entry to the healthcare system. Analysis of access focuses on inequality and inequity in the availability and use of health services. In order to address global inequalities in access to healthcare, international organizations have promoted access to healthcare as a human right. This is linked to the ideal of universal health coverage, with shared funding of some or all healthcare for everyone, as a key strategy for achieving this. At a national level, rational strategies for resource allocation and priority setting are used to promote equity of access in terms of equal access for equal need, but historical inequalities based on the ‘inverse care law’ have been resistant to change. In health systems led by primary care, access to a general practitioner (GP) tends to reduce inequalities in ‘entry’ access to the health system, but the gatekeeping role of GPs may contribute to the development of inequalities of ‘in-system’ access. Wide variations in the utilization of both primary and secondary care services are indicative of access inequalities, but these variations may sometimes reflect clinical uncertainty or poor-quality care. Access inequalities may also arise from personal, social, and cultural barriers experienced by patients in accessing healthcare. These barriers typically represent more severe obstacles for marginalized groups in the population. Promoting equity means ensuring that services are responsive and acceptable to all groups, including those with stigmatized conditions.
Carol M. Ashton and Nelda P. Wray
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199968565
- eISBN:
- 9780199346080
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968565.003.0010
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health
Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to ...
More
Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to federally-mandated comparative effectiveness research objected to the policy entirely, proponents of the policy were divided as to where the function should be housed (inside the federal government or outside); how it should be financed (congressional appropriations or fees levied on public and private health insurers and health plans), and how it should be governed (how much representation should each stakeholder have on a governing board). Every specification has its advantages and disadvantages. The two federal mandates currently in force for comparative effectiveness research—the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act—differ markedly in placement, financing, governance, research priority-setting methods, and processes, illustrating the fact that every alternative is a balance between advantages and disadvantages.Less
Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to federally-mandated comparative effectiveness research objected to the policy entirely, proponents of the policy were divided as to where the function should be housed (inside the federal government or outside); how it should be financed (congressional appropriations or fees levied on public and private health insurers and health plans), and how it should be governed (how much representation should each stakeholder have on a governing board). Every specification has its advantages and disadvantages. The two federal mandates currently in force for comparative effectiveness research—the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act—differ markedly in placement, financing, governance, research priority-setting methods, and processes, illustrating the fact that every alternative is a balance between advantages and disadvantages.
Ole Frithjof Norheim
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- March 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190921415
- eISBN:
- 9780190921446
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190921415.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
In this chapter, I discuss the Time-Relative Interest Account (TRIA) and the Life Comparative Account (LCA) and their implications for summary measures of population health and fair priority setting ...
More
In this chapter, I discuss the Time-Relative Interest Account (TRIA) and the Life Comparative Account (LCA) and their implications for summary measures of population health and fair priority setting in health care. First, I argue that an extreme interpretation of TRIA is incompatible with the standard practice of measuring population health by life expectancy at birth as an indicator. Implementing a policy of always saving adults before children would decrease life expectancy in a population. This implication is untenable. Second, I argue that a moderate interpretation of TRIA is compatible with earlier attempts to measure the burden of disease in populations by using marginal age weights in the valuation of Disability-Adjusted Life Years lost. The authors of the Global Burden of Disease study subsequently abandoned age weights. Third, I argue that marginal age weights used for determining social priority for health improvements may be appropriate.Less
In this chapter, I discuss the Time-Relative Interest Account (TRIA) and the Life Comparative Account (LCA) and their implications for summary measures of population health and fair priority setting in health care. First, I argue that an extreme interpretation of TRIA is incompatible with the standard practice of measuring population health by life expectancy at birth as an indicator. Implementing a policy of always saving adults before children would decrease life expectancy in a population. This implication is untenable. Second, I argue that a moderate interpretation of TRIA is compatible with earlier attempts to measure the burden of disease in populations by using marginal age weights in the valuation of Disability-Adjusted Life Years lost. The authors of the Global Burden of Disease study subsequently abandoned age weights. Third, I argue that marginal age weights used for determining social priority for health improvements may be appropriate.
Joseph Millum
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- March 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190921415
- eISBN:
- 9780190921446
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190921415.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
Donors to global health programs and policymakers within national health systems have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce health care resources. Principled ways to make these ...
More
Donors to global health programs and policymakers within national health systems have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce health care resources. Principled ways to make these decisions all make some use of summary measures of health, which provide a common measure of the value (or disvalue) of morbidity and mortality. They thereby allow comparisons between health interventions with different effects on the patterns of death and ill health within a population. The construction of a summary measure of health requires that a number be assigned to the harm of death. But the harm of death is currently a matter of debate: different philosophical theories assign very different values to the harm of death at different ages. This chapter considers how we should assign numbers to the harm of deaths at different ages in the face of uncertainty and disagreement.Less
Donors to global health programs and policymakers within national health systems have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce health care resources. Principled ways to make these decisions all make some use of summary measures of health, which provide a common measure of the value (or disvalue) of morbidity and mortality. They thereby allow comparisons between health interventions with different effects on the patterns of death and ill health within a population. The construction of a summary measure of health requires that a number be assigned to the harm of death. But the harm of death is currently a matter of debate: different philosophical theories assign very different values to the harm of death at different ages. This chapter considers how we should assign numbers to the harm of deaths at different ages in the face of uncertainty and disagreement.
Linda Marks
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- January 2015
- ISBN:
- 9781447304944
- eISBN:
- 9781447311775
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781447304944.003.0006
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health
Concern over the scale of preventable morbidity is compounded by its differential distribution across the population. Economic arguments for prevention have become more prominent and this chapter ...
More
Concern over the scale of preventable morbidity is compounded by its differential distribution across the population. Economic arguments for prevention have become more prominent and this chapter considers the policy context, influences on priority-setting and enablers and barriers for prioritising prevention in practice. It reviews public health intelligence and assesses a range of decision-support methods, including economic evaluation and return on investment for prevention. The chapter shows that methods for priority-setting were not always suited to addressing equity or longer-term public health investment; data were often inadequate; and modelling skills were in short supply. While disinvestment was increasingly considered a prerequisite for public health investment, this was difficult to achieve. Commissioners made relatively little use of decision-support methods. With economic pressures facing local authorities, prioritisation frameworks will be required to make difficult rationing decisions more transparent: implications of the study for prioritising public health investment are discussed.Less
Concern over the scale of preventable morbidity is compounded by its differential distribution across the population. Economic arguments for prevention have become more prominent and this chapter considers the policy context, influences on priority-setting and enablers and barriers for prioritising prevention in practice. It reviews public health intelligence and assesses a range of decision-support methods, including economic evaluation and return on investment for prevention. The chapter shows that methods for priority-setting were not always suited to addressing equity or longer-term public health investment; data were often inadequate; and modelling skills were in short supply. While disinvestment was increasingly considered a prerequisite for public health investment, this was difficult to achieve. Commissioners made relatively little use of decision-support methods. With economic pressures facing local authorities, prioritisation frameworks will be required to make difficult rationing decisions more transparent: implications of the study for prioritising public health investment are discussed.