Affiliation:
1. University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Objectives:This article seeks to review debates about age-based rationing in health care. Methods:The article identifies four different levels (or types) of decisionmaking in health resource allocation—societal, strategic, programmatic, and clinical— and assesses how the issues of rationing vary in relation to each level. Results:The article concludes that rationing is least defensible at the clinical level, where it is also most covert. The role of rationing at other levels is more defensible when based on grounds of cost-effectiveness rather than equity. The article emphasizes the importance of fairness in health allocation and suggests that efficiency criteria need to be considered in that context. Discussion:The article suggests that rationing is most problematic where it is least overt. This raises further questions about how rationing can be made more explicit at different levels of decision making.
Subject
Geriatrics and Gerontology,Community and Home Care,Gerontology
Cited by
19 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