Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage [UHC; World Health Organization (WHO), 2014] is to be welcomed because tackling the relationship between cost-effectiveness and fairness has been given too little attention in policy-making. The consensus that universal coverage is a good thing quickly disperses as the concept is translated into working national policies and local delivery processes. As Weale (2014) and Rumbold and Wilson (2014) point out, seeking practical solutions can lead to the re-exploration of previous givens and result in unexpected ethical and philosophical consequences. While the basic premise underlying the discussion on the ethics of resource concurs with the view that equity is always at odds with efficiency, this is not inevitable as the authors of the report point out in their analysis – a view more fully explored by Culyer (2006). The present report is a welcome attempt to reconcile, as countries progress to UHC, ethical norms with the reality of setting priorities, involving what to pay for and under what circumstances.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.