Access, Equity and the Role of Rights in Health Care
Tóm tắt
Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values—liberty and equity—can be evaluated and assessed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Appleby J, Harrison A, Devlin N (2003) What is the real cost of more patient choice? King's Fund, London
Building on the Best (2003) Building on the Best – Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS. Cm 6079, p. 19
Dennett ER, Kipping RR, Parry BR, Windsor J (1998) Priority access criteria for elective cholecystectomy: A comparison of three scoring methods. N Z Med J 111:231–233
Dennett ER, Parry BR (1998) Generic surgical priority criteria scoring system: The clinical reality. N Z Med J 111:163–166
Department of Health (2004a) Implementation of NICE Guidance; para 7, June. Department of Health: England
Department of Health (2004b) The NHS Improvement Plan – Putting People at the Heart of Public Services. Cm 6268. Department of Health: England
Derrett S (2001) Surgical prioritisation and rationing: Some recent changes. N Z Bioethics J 2(3):3–6
Derrett S, Devlin N, et al (2003) Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: A prospective study of Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria in New Zealand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):91–105
Derrett S, Paul C, Herbison P, Williams H (2002) Evaluation of explicit prioritisation for elective surgery: A prospective study. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(Suppl 1):14–22
Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Elective Services Group (2004) Elective Services web site. www.electiveservices.govt.nz/index.cfm
Fraser G, Alley P, Morris R (1993) Waiting lists and waiting times: Their nature and management. National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, Wellington
Gandar P, Williams H, Theis J-C, Panting A, French G (2004) Equity of access to treatment for patients assessed for major joint replacement versus other orthopaedic conditions. Discussion Paper – Elective Services Continuous Quality Improvement Pilot. Elective Services Group, Wellington
Gauld R, Derrett S (2000) Solving the surgical waiting list problem? New Zealand's ‘booking system.’ Int J Health Plann Manage 15:259–272
Gulliford M, Figueroa-Muñoz J, Morgan M (2003) In: Gulliford M, Morgan M (eds) Meaning of ‘access’ in health care. Access to health care. Routledge, London & New York
Hadorn DC, Holmes AC (1997) The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview. BMJ 314:131–134
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (2003) Inappropriate Adjustments to NHS Waiting Lists, 46th Report, Session 2001–02
Jackson NW, Doogue MP, Elliott JM (1999) Priority points and cardiac events while waiting for coronary bypass surgery. Heart 81:367–373
Learning from Bristol (2001) Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, 1984–95. Cm. 5207, 57, para. 31
MacCormick A, Macmillan A, Parry BR (2004) Identification of criteria for the prioritisation of patients for elective general surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy 9(1):28–33
McLeod D, Dew K, Morgan S, Dowell A, Cumming J, Cormack D, McKinlay E, Love T (2004) Equity of access to elective surgery: Reflections from NZ clinicians. J Health Serv Res Policy 9(Suppl 2):41–47
Marquand D (2004) The decline of the public. Polity Press, Cambridge
Ministry of Health (2000) Reduced Waiting Times for Public Hospital Elective Services: Government Strategy, www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/
Mooney G (1998) Beyond health outcomes: The benefits of health care. Health Care Anal 6:99–105
Newdick C (2005) Who Should We Treat? – Rights, Rationing and Resources in the NHS, Chapter 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Seddon ME, French JK, Amos DJ, Ramanathan K, McLaughlin SC, White HD (1999) Waiting times and prioritisation for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand. Heart 81:586–592
Williams A (1993) Equity in health care: The role of ideology. In: Van Doorslaer E, Wagstaff A, Rutten, F (eds) Equity in the finance and delivery of health care: An international perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Tokyo