Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

Author:

Färdow JoakimORCID,Broström Linus,Johansson MatsORCID

Abstract

AbstractAllocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

Funder

Region Kronoberg

Lund University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health(social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Reference38 articles.

1. Alstergren, P. (2018). Vill se jämlik vård: Ansikte, mun och käkarna tillhör kroppen [A call for equal care: The face, mouth and jaw belong to the body]. Lakartidningen 115, E9P3.

2. Barra, M., Broqvist, M., Gustavsson, E., Henriksson, M., Juth, N., Sandman, L., et al. (2019). Severity as a priority setting criterion: Setting a challenging research agenda. Health Care Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-019-00371-z.

3. Blankholm, A., Sandvik, E., Løseth, B., Magnussen, J., Kjellevold, A., Schou, P., et al. (2018). Det viktigste først—Prinsipper for prioritering i den kommunale helse- og omsorgstjenesten og for offentlig finansierte tannhelsetjenester. (Norges offentlige utredninger). Report No.: 2018: 16. Oslo, Norway: Helse-og Omsorgsdepartementet.

4. Brock, G. (1998). Necessary goods: Our responsibility to meet others’ needs (studies in social, political, and legal philosophy). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

5. Broqvist, M., Sandman, L., Garpenby, P., & Krevers, B. (2018). The meaning of severity—Do citizens views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting? Health Policy, 122(6), 630–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.005.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3