Skip to main content

Ethics of Resource Allocation and Rationing Medical Care in a Time of Fiscal Restraint - US and Europe


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.


  1. 1.

    Ubel P, Goold S. ‘Rationing’ health care. Not all definitions are created equal. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:209–14.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Sixth Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    World Health Organization. World Health Report 2000. Health systems: improving performance. Geneva: WHO; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Saltman R, Figueras J, editors. European health care reform. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Klein R. Rationing in the fiscal ice age. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5:389–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data. Available from URL: (accessed 5 January, 2012). Baltimore: CMS; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a glance 2011._Available from URL:,3746,en_2649_37407_16502667_1_1_1_37407,00.html (accessed 5 January, 2012). Paris: OECD; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fielding J, Teutsch S, Breslow L. A framework for public health in the United States. Public Health Reviews. 2010;32:174–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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: (accessed 21 June, 2012). Washington DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Institute of Medicine. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rechel B, McKee M. Health reform in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Lancet. 2009;374:1186–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    European Commission. Eurostat data. Available from URL: (accessed 26 February, 2012). European Commission; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rechel B, Khodjamurodov G. International involvement and national health governance: the basic benefit package in Tajikistan. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70:1928–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    McDaid D, Wiley M, Maresso A, Mossialos E. Ireland: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2009;11:1–268.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chevreul K, Durand-Zaleski I, Bahrami S, Hernandez-Quevedo C, Mladovsky P. France: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12:1–291.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gerkens S, Merkur S. Belgium: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12:1–266.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Moreiro T. Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: a conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1333–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Brown P, Calnan M. Political accountability of explicit rationing: legitimacy problems faced by NICE. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15:65–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wilensky G. Re-engineering health systems: The U.S. experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;74:674–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Teutsch MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teutsch, S., Rechel, B. Ethics of Resource Allocation and Rationing Medical Care in a Time of Fiscal Restraint - US and Europe. Public Health Rev 34, 15 (2012).

Download citation


  • Public health
  • ethics
  • resource allocation
  • rationing
  • health care policy
  • United States
  • Europe