Procedural justice and democratic institutional design in health-care priority-setting

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Landwehr
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

Value congruence in health care priority setting: social values, institutions and decisions in three countries

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Landwehr ◽  
Dorothea Klinnert
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Public Acceptance ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

AbstractMost 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.

Strategic Institutional Design: Two Case Studies of Non-Majoritarian Agencies in Health Care Priority-Setting

2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 632-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Landwehr ◽  
Katharina Böhm
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Blame Avoidance ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting ◽  
Strategic Motives ◽  
Selection Of

Governments’ decisions to delegate policy decisions to non-majoritarian agencies have been both criticized as attempts at blame avoidance or depoliticization and defended as enhancing the rationality and credibility of decisions. This article focuses not on the decision to delegate, but on the decisions of how and to whom to delegate. We argue that strategic motives are relevant not only in the decision to delegate, but equally, and perhaps more importantly, in the selection of the institutional properties of these non-majoritarian agencies. We present two case studies of health care priority-setting, in England and Germany, to illustrate how governments proceed strategically in institutional design choices and how their decisions affect outcomes.

Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review

Health Policy ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Mitton ◽  
Neale Smith ◽  
Stuart Peacock ◽  
Brian Evoy ◽  
Julia Abelson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: Evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework

2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 751-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Maluka ◽  
Peter Kamuzora ◽  
Miguel San Sebastiån ◽  
Jens Byskov ◽  
Øystein E. Olsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Martin ◽  
Julia Abelson ◽  
Peter Singer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Medical Specialist ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting ◽  
Patient Representative

Objectives: The literature on participation in priority-setting has three key gaps: it focuses on techniques for obtaining public input into priority-setting that are consultative mechanisms and do not involve the public directly in decision-making; it focuses primarily on the public's role in priority-setting, not on all potential participants; and the range of roles that various participants play in a group making priority decisions has not been described. To begin addressing these gaps, we interviewed individuals who participated on two priority-setting committees to identify key insights from participants about participation. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of interviews with decision-makers, including patients and members of the public. Results: Members of the public can contribute directly to important aspects of priority-setting. The participants described six specific priority-setting roles: committee chair, administrator, medical specialist, medical generalist, public representative and patient representative. They also described the contributions of each role to priority-setting. Conclusions: Using the insights from decision-makers, we have described lessons related to direct involvement of members of the public and patients in priority-setting, and have identified six roles and the contributions of each role.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document