Abstract
Priority setting, whether in health or investments in other goods, is required whenever a society must provide for the needs and welfare of its population and resources are limited, which is always. Since health is only one good among many that a society must provide, however important people claim it is, resources for it are always limited. Yet disagreement about resource allocation is pervasive. Arguably, this means that a form of procedural justice must be used to arrive at priority setting commitments. Although health technology assessment (HTA) gives important advice, standard forms of it underdetermine choices about priority setting. If HTA is embedded in a fair, deliberative process, one that meets the conditions involved in accountability for reasonableness, it can enhance the legitimacy and fairness of its recommendations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Balthussen R, Niessen L (2006) Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 4:14
Daniels N (1993) Rationing fairly: programmatic considerations. Bioethics 7(2/3):224–233
Daniels N, Ladin K (2014) Chapter 5: Immigration and access to health care. In: Arras J, Kukla R, Fenton E (eds) Routledge companion to bioethics. Routledge, New York
Daniels N, Sabin JE (1997) Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 26:303–350
Daniels N, Sabin JE (2008) Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health? 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Hans V (2007) Deliberation and dissent: 12 angry men versus the empirical reality of juries. Chi-Kent Law Rev 82(2):579–589
Kamm F (1993) Morality, mortality: death and whom to save from it: volume I. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
World Health Organization (WHO) Consultative Group (2014) Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage: final report of the WHO Consultative Group on equity and universal health coverage. World Health Organization, Geneva
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Daniels, N. (2016). Accountability for Reasonableness and Priority Setting in Health. In: Nagel, E., Lauerer, M. (eds) Prioritization in Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21112-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21112-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21111-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21112-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)