- Open Access
- Published:
Ethics of Resource Allocation and Rationing Medical Care in a Time of Fiscal Restraint - US and Europe
Public Health Reviewsvolume 34, Article number: 15 (2012)
Abstract
Background: All resources are scarce. The ethical dilemma in health care is how to balance the precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and distributive justice. Rationing may affect three dimensions of coverage: the share of the population covered, the services covered, and the extent to which services are covered.
United States: The US spends 50 percent more per capita on health care than any other country while achieving worse health than many. Poorly coordinated insurance mechanisms leave 19 percent of the population uninsured. Until passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, health care was effectively a privilege, not a right. While PPACA seeks to rectify this, by 2019 five percent of non-elderly US residents will likely remain uninsured.
Europe: Most European countries provide universal or near-universal population coverage to people resident in the respective country. Central and Eastern European countries inherited the Soviet-era commitment to universal coverage free at the point of use. Faced with a decline in government spending on health, almost all of them reduced the scope of services and introduced official user fees. In contrast, other European countries expanded entitlement to publicly funded health care, resulting in greater equity. A number of countries have attempted to depoliticize decisions on rationing by using health technology assessments and dedicated agencies.
Discussion: Resource allocation and rationing differ considerably between the US and Europe. In the US, where social welfare remains controversial, there are few restrictions on the use of health care technology regardless of cost or clinical effectiveness. European countries engage in more explicit debates about these limits, though these are complicated by media and lobby power.
Conclusion: The ethical issues in the US largely revolve around rationing care by eligibility for insurance coverage, whereas in Europe they are more concerned with the scope of publicly funded services to all. On both sides of the Atlantic, public debates are needed about the financial sustainability of health systems, the tradeoffs between cost-containment and broader societal and health system goals, the role of the welfare state, and the limits of publicly financed health care.
References
- 1.
Ubel P, Goold S. ‘Rationing’ health care. Not all definitions are created equal. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:209–14.
- 2.
Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Sixth Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
- 3.
World Health Organization. World Health Report 2000. Health systems: improving performance. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
- 4.
Duran A, Kutzin J, Martin-Moreno J, Travis P. Understanding health systems: scope, functions and objectives. In: Figueras J, McKee M, editors. Health Systems, Health, Wealth and Societal Well-being Assessing the Case for Investing in Health Systems. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012. p. 19–36.
- 5.
Rechel B, Thomson S, van Ginneken E. Health systems in transition: template for authors. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2010.
- 6.
Askildsen J, Holmas T, Kaarboe O. Monitoring prioritisation in the public health-care sector by use of medical guidelines. The case of Norway. Health Econ. 2011;20:958–70.
- 7.
Fendrick AM, Cherew M. Value-based insurance design: aligning incentives to bridge the divide between quality improvement and cost containment. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:SP5–10.
- 8.
Thomson S, Foubister T, Figueras J, Kutzin J, Permanand G, Bryndova L. Addressing financial sustainability in health systems. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2009.
- 9.
McKee M, Figueras J. Strategies for health services. In: Detels R, McEwen J, Beaglehole R, Tanaka H, editors. Oxford Textbook of Public Health, Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 1889–909.
- 10.
Saltman R, Figueras J, editors. European health care reform. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 1997.
- 11.
Klein R. Rationing in the fiscal ice age. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5:389–96.
- 12.
Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Burnett A, Montgomery J. “No decisions about us without us”? Individual healthcare rationing in a fiscal ice age. BMJ. 2011;342:d3279.
- 13.
Gusmano M, Allin S. Health care for older persons in England and the United States: a contrast of systems and values. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2011; 36(1):89–118.
- 14.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data. Available from URL: https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp#TopOfPage (accessed 5 January, 2012). Baltimore: CMS; 2012.
- 15.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a glance 2011._Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_37407_16502667_1_1_1_37407,00.html (accessed 5 January, 2012). Paris: OECD; 2011.
- 16.
Fielding J, Teutsch S, Breslow L. A framework for public health in the United States. Public Health Reviews. 2010;32:174–89.
- 17.
Elmendorff D. CBO’s analysis of the major health care legislation enacted in March 2010. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Health Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. March 30, 2011. Available from URL: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22077 (accessed 21 June, 2012). Washington DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2011.
- 18.
Institute of Medicine. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
- 19.
Thomson S, Foubister T, Mossialos E. Financing health care in the European Union: challenges and policy responses. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2009.
- 20.
Rechel B, McKee M. Health reform in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Lancet. 2009;374:1186–95.
- 21.
European Commission. Eurostat data. Available from URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database (accessed 26 February, 2012). European Commission; 2012.
- 22.
Gotsadze G, Gaal P. Coverage decisions: benefit entitlements and patient cost sharing. In: Kutzin J, Cashin C, Jakab M, editors. Implementing Health Financing Reform: Lessons from Countries in Transition. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2010. p. 187–217.
- 23.
Rechel B, Khodjamurodov G. International involvement and national health governance: the basic benefit package in Tajikistan. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70:1928–32.
- 24.
McDaid D, Wiley M, Maresso A, Mossialos E. Ireland: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2009;11:1–268.
- 25.
Chevreul K, Durand-Zaleski I, Bahrami S, Hernandez-Quevedo C, Mladovsky P. France: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12:1–291.
- 26.
Gerkens S, Merkur S. Belgium: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12:1–266.
- 27.
Schäfer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W, van den Berg M, Westert G, Devillé W, et al. The Netherlands: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12:1–229.
- 28.
Moreiro T. Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: a conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1333–41.
- 29.
Brown P, Calnan M. Political accountability of explicit rationing: legitimacy problems faced by NICE. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15:65–6.
- 30.
Wilensky G. Re-engineering health systems: The U.S. experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;74:674–6.
Author information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Published
DOI
Keywords
- Public health
- ethics
- resource allocation
- rationing
- health care policy
- United States
- Europe
