Accountability for reasonableness : Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles

Published on Nov 25, 2000in BMJ27.604
· DOI :10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300
Norman Daniels44
Estimated H-index: 44
All health systems struggle with the issue of meeting population health needs fairly under resource constraints. Decisions about the implementation of new technologies provide a useful window into the larger issue, and a paper in this week's journal provides a valuable insight into the elements of decision making that decision makers themselves think important in trying to reach fair decisions on applying new technologies in health care.1 In mixed systems, like that in the United States, decisions whether to fund new technologies—drugs, devices, procedures—are made both by public agencies, such as the Health Care Financing Administration or the Veterans Administration, and by private indemnity insurers and managed care organisations. In the universal coverage systems of most developed countries such decisions are made by public agencies or authorities. Distrust has grown in all these settings.2,3 Clinicians, patients, and the public—propelled by the media, the internet, and direct to consumer advertising—often believe these decisions are guided solely by the “bottom line,” not patient welfare. The moral legitimacy of limits and priorities thus involves not just who has moral authority to set them, but how they are set. Some countries with universal coverage systems initially tried to address this problem of legitimacy by setting up national commissions to articulate principles that should govern the setting of priorities. Holm has argued that these principles proved too general and too unclear in practice.4 More generally, we probably lack consensus on principles capable of resolving disputes about rationing.5 A second wave of efforts to address priority setting has thus focused on developing fair, publicly acceptable processes for making these decisions. In the United States an active consumer movement has also focused on a patients' bill of rights as a vehicle for fair process. In the United Kingdom, awareness of the need for clear process is reflected in the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to handle some aspects of rationing.6,7 In pluralist societies we are likely to find reasonable disagreement about principles that should govern priority setting. For example, some will want to give more priority to the worst off, some less; some will be willing to aggregate benefits in ways that others are not. In the absence of consensus on principles, a fair process allows us to agree on what is legitimate and fair. Key elements of fair process will involve transparency about the grounds for decisions; appeals to rationales that all can accept as relevant to meeting health needs fairly; and procedures for revising decisions in light of challenges to them.8 Together these elements assure “accountability for reasonableness.”9 Fair procedures must also be empirically feasible. They must involve practices that can be sustained and that connect well with the goals of various stakeholders in the many institutional settings where these decisions are made. The value of the study by Singer et al in this issue is that it points to key elements of actual decision making processes that can be further improved to achieve legitimacy and fairness (p 1316).1 An ethical approach to fair process must build on their findings. A fair process requires publicity about the reasons and rationales that play a part in decisions. There must be no secrets where justice is involved, for people should not be expected to accept decisions that affect their well being unless they are aware of the grounds for those decisions. The study found that transparency was important to participants in the decisions, though it did not state whether the rationales for decisions were then made transparent to all affected by them. This broader transparency is a hallmark of fair process. Fair process also involves constraints on reasons. Fair minded people—those who seek mutually justifiable grounds for cooperation—must agree that the reasons, evidence, and rationales are relevant to meeting population health needs fairly, the shared goal of deliberation. The kinds of reasons described in the study meet this condition, but the institutions studied—committees concerned with implementing new technologies—did not face the more difficult task of comparing quite different benefits across different groups of patients under budget limits. Fair process also requires opportunities to challenge and revise decisions in light of the kinds of considerations all stakeholders may raise. Though the committees studied by Singer et al gave evidence that decisions improved—that is, became more sensitive to patient variations—through revision, there should be a mechanism for appeals to decisions by those affected by them. The fact that a single lay member of the cardiac committee did not function as effectively as the three lay members of the cancer committee is a lesson that must be taken seriously in designing fair procedures. Accountability for reasonableness makes it possible to educate all stakeholders about the substance of deliberation about fair decisions under resource constraints. It facilitates social learning about limits. It connects decision making in healthcare institutions to broader, more fundamental democratic deliberative processes. Accountability for reasonableness also occupies a middle ground in the debate between those calling for “explicit” and “implicit” rationing.10 Like implicit approaches, it does not require that principles for rationing be made explicit ahead of time. But, like explicit approaches, it does call for transparency about reasoning that all can eventually agree is relevant. Since we may not be able to construct principles that yield fair decisions ahead of time, we need a process that allows us to develop those reasons over time as we face real cases. The social learning that this approach facilitates provides our best prospect of achieving agreement over sharing medical resources fairly.
  • References (17)
  • Citations (402)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
413 Citations
219 Citations
10.1k Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
#1Peter SingerH-Index: 80
#2Douglas K. MartinH-Index: 39
Last. Laura M. PurdyH-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
Objective To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. Design Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. Setting Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. Participants The two committees and their 26 members. Main outcome measures Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents. interviewing members, and observing meetings. Results Six interrelated domains were identified...
130 CitationsSource
Objective To evaluate the prevalence of the use of lipid lowering agents and its relation to blood lipid concentrations in English adults.
129 CitationsSource
#1Angela CoulterH-Index: 60
#2Chris HamH-Index: 22
Introduction - international experience of rationing (or priority setting). Part 1 How to set priorities: setting priorities - what is holding us back inadequate information or inadequate institutions?. Part 2 Governments and rationing: developments in the Nordic countries goodbye to the simple solutions reactivation of the prioritization process in Finnish health care Israel's basic basket of health services - the importance of being explicitly implicit setting priorities "American style". Part...
156 Citations
#1Neil HaH-Index: 1
#2Fowler GH-Index: 1
Last. Maton SH-Index: 2
view all 5 authors...
8 Citations
17 CitationsSource
What follows is the description of an improved hydraulic apparatus for the automatic adjustment of the inclination of the headlights of a motor vehicle, the adjustment being a dependent function of the axle load. The apparatus has a level sensor at each axle and each level sensor contains one metering piston and two positioning pistons. The rear axle level sensor is connected via two separate hydraulic lines to the front axle sensor, and the front axle sensor is in turn connected via two separat...
100 Citations
219 CitationsSource
#1Jerry AvornH-Index: 112
#2Johanne MonetteH-Index: 30
Last. Jacques LeLorierH-Index: 35
view all 7 authors...
Context.—Although clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of lipid-lowering therapy, little is known about how these drugs are prescribed or used in the general population.Objective.—To estimate predictors of persistence with therapy for lipid-lowering drug regimens in typical populations of patients in the United States and Canada.Design.—A cohort study defining all prescriptions filled for lipid-lowering drugs during 1 year, as well as patients' demographic and clinical characteristics....
583 CitationsSource
#1Neil C Campbell (Aberd.: University of Aberdeen)H-Index: 30
#2J. ThainH-Index: 5
Last. John Rawles (Aberd.: University of Aberdeen)H-Index: 17
view all 5 authors...
Abstract Objective : To determine secondary preventive treatment and habits among patients with coronary heart disease in general practice. Design : Process of care data on a random sample of patients were collected from medical records. Health and lifestyle data were collected by postal questionnaire (response rate 71%). Setting : Stratified, random sample of general practices in Grampian. Subjects : 1921 patients aged under 80 years with coronary heart disease identified from pre-existing regi...
195 CitationsSource
#1Christopher HamH-Index: 1
#2Susan PickardH-Index: 1
24 Citations
Cited By402
#1Olivia Biermann (KI: Karolinska Institutet)H-Index: 2
#2Salla AtkinsH-Index: 9
Last. Kerri VineyH-Index: 11
view all 5 authors...
Objective To explore experts’ views on factors influencing national and global active case-finding (ACF) policy development and implementation, and the use of evidence in these processes. Design This is an exploratory study based on semistructured expert interviews. Framework analysis was applied. Participants The study involved a purposive sample of 39 experts from international, non-governmental and non-profit organisations, funders, government institutions, international societies, think tank...
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Entscheidungen zur Kostenubernahme (Erstattungsentscheidungen) sind Entscheidungen von Drittzahlern daruber, ob, in welcher Hohe und unter welchen Bedingungen Kosten fur Technologien oder Dienstleistungen ubernommen werden. Aufgrund der Komplexitat solcher Entscheidungen ist hierbei eine systematische und transparente Herangehensweise erforderlich. Im Rahmen des DECIDE-Projekts (DECIDE: Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions a...
#1Beverley M Essue (McMaster University)H-Index: 12
#2Lydia Kapiriri (McMaster University)H-Index: 23
Health systems are critical to the realisation of Universal Health Coverage. There has been insufficient attention to the evaluation of priority setting for health system strengthening within low i...
Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on...
#1Je Williams (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 8
#1Jane WilliamsH-Index: 4
Last. Angus DawsonH-Index: 18
view all 2 authors...
BACKGROUND: The world is threatened by future pandemics. Vaccines can play a key role in preventing harm, but there will inevitably be shortages because there is no possibility of advance stockpiling. We therefore need some method of prioritising access. MAIN TEXT: This paper reports a critical interpretative review of the published literature that discusses ethical arguments used to justify how we could prioritise vaccine during an influenza pandemic. We found that the focus of the literature w...
This study examines NICE’s application of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for normalizing patients’ access to newly licensed health technologies. Drawing upon evidence from the appraisal of four drugs developed for a rare form of cancer, this study demonstrates that the discourse of CEA provided a medium whereby contradicting ideologies of fairness were contested and resistance was provoked. Far from being docile the patients whom the NICE technology appraisal sought to administer were activel...
#1Angela Ballantyne (NUS: National University of Singapore)
#2G. Owen Schaefer (NUS: National University of Singapore)H-Index: 7
The future of health research will be characterised by three continuing trends: rising demand for health data; increasing impracticability of obtaining specific consent for secondary research; and decreasing capacity to effectively anonymise data. In this context, governments, clinicians and the research community must demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of health data. IRBs and RECs sit at heart of this process because in many jurisdictions they have the capacity to grant consent ...
#1Gordon G. Liu (PKU: Peking University)H-Index: 19
#2Eric Q. Wu (AG: Analysis Group)H-Index: 42
Last. Hongbo Yang (AG: Analysis Group)H-Index: 11
view all 6 authors...
Abstract Health technology assessment (HTA) has long been employed by many countries around the world, but its adoption in Asia has been slower. Only recently have a growing number of Asian countries started to implement HTA for pricing and reimbursement decisions. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of how HTA has been or is being implemented in Asia within the context of a country’s existing—and often complex—coverage, reimbursement, and pricing schemes. Three countries at ...
#1Christine Leopold (Harvard University)H-Index: 11
#2Christine Y. Lu (Harvard University)H-Index: 19
Last. Anita K. Wagner (Harvard University)H-Index: 31
view all 3 authors...
BACKGROUND: Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries' approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons le...