Lopert Ruth, Rosenbaum Sara
Australian Department of Health and Ageing.
J Law Med Ethics. 2007 Winter;35(4):643-56, 512-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00187.x.
The importance of prescription drugs to modern medical practice, coupled with their increasing costs, has strengthened imperatives for national health policies that ensure safety and quality, facilitate affordable access, and promote rational use. Australia has made universal and affordable prescription drug coverage a priority for decades, within a policy framework that emphasizes equity and increasing transparency in coverage design and payment decisions. By contrast, the U.S. lacks such a national policy. Furthermore, federal Medicare reforms aimed at making appropriate drug coverage affordable and accessible employs two icons of the U.S. perception of fairness--the right to choose and the right to challenge coverage design limits--that mask the limited nature of the assistance. As the U.S. seeks to impose its values and priorities on other nations through the negotiation of bilateral and regional trade agreements, it becomes important to consider the two national experiences, in order to avoid trading illusory notions of fairness for true population equity.
处方药对现代医疗实践至关重要,再加上其成本不断攀升,这强化了制定国家卫生政策的必要性,这些政策要确保药品安全和质量,促进人们能够负担得起并合理使用。几十年来,澳大利亚一直将全民且负担得起的处方药覆盖作为优先事项,其政策框架强调公平以及在覆盖范围设计和支付决策方面提高透明度。相比之下,美国缺乏这样一项国家政策。此外,旨在使适当的药品覆盖变得可负担得起且可及的联邦医疗保险改革采用了美国所认为的公平的两个标志——选择的权利和对覆盖范围设计限制提出质疑的权利——而这掩盖了援助的有限性。由于美国试图通过双边和区域贸易协定谈判将其价值观和优先事项强加于其他国家,因此考虑这两个国家的经验就变得很重要,以便避免用虚幻的公平观念换取真正的人群公平。