Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 27 (1):107-134 (2017)

Benedict Rumbold
Nottingham University
Health systems that provide for universal patient access through a scheme of prepayments—whether through taxes, social insurance, or a combination of the two—need to make decisions on the scope of coverage that they secure. Such decisions are inherently controversial, implying, as they do, that some patients will receive less than comprehensive health care, or less than complete protection from the financial consequences of ill-heath, even when there is a clinically effective therapy to which they might have access.Controversial decisions of this sort call for a public justification for covering or not covering a given treatment. Priority-setting agencies play a key role in providing such a justification. A recent...
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/ken.2017.0005
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,756
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Priority Setting and Evidence Based Purchasing.Lucy Frith - 1999 - Health Care Analysis 7 (2):139-151.
Priorities in the Israeli Health Care System.Frida Simonstein - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (3):341-347.


Added to PP index

Total views
27 ( #363,153 of 2,333,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #82,090 of 2,333,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes