Landwehr Claudia, Klinnert Dorothea
Department of Political Science,Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz,Mainz,Germany.
Health Econ Policy Law. 2015 Apr;10(2):113-32. doi: 10.1017/S1744133114000437. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
Most developed democracies have faced the challenge of priority setting in health care by setting up specialized agencies to take decisions on which medical services to include in public health baskets. Under the influence of Daniels and Sabin's seminal work on the topic, agencies increasingly aim to fulfil criteria of procedural justice, such as accountability and transparency. We assume, however, that the institutional design of agencies also and necessarily reflects substantial value judgments on the respective weight of distributive principles such as efficiency, need and equality. The public acceptance of prioritization decisions, and eventually of the health care system at large, will ultimately depend not only on considerations of procedural fairness, but also on the congruence between a society's values and its institutions. We study social values, institutions and decisions in three countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) in order to assess such congruence and formulate expectations on its effects.
大多数发达民主国家都面临着医疗保健领域确定优先事项的挑战,为此设立了专门机构来决定将哪些医疗服务纳入公共卫生篮子。在丹尼尔斯和萨宾关于该主题的开创性著作的影响下,这些机构越来越致力于满足程序正义的标准,如问责制和透明度。然而,我们认为,这些机构的制度设计也必然反映了对效率、需求和平等分配原则各自权重的实质性价值判断。对优先事项决策以及最终对整个医疗保健系统的公众接受度,最终不仅取决于程序公平的考量,还取决于一个社会的价值观与其制度之间的一致性。我们研究了三个国家(法国、德国和英国)的社会价值观、制度和决策,以评估这种一致性,并对其影响形成预期。