Is the Oregon Rationing Plan Fair?
JAMA. 1991 May 1; 265(17): 2232-2235.
The Oregon Basic Health Services Act mandates universal access to basic care, but includes rationing services to those individuals who are Medicaid recipients. If no new resources are added, the plan may make current Medicaid recipients worse off, but still reduce inequality between the poor and the rest of society. If resources are expanded and benefits given appropriate rankings, no one may be worse off; though inequality will be reduced, alternative reforms might reduce it even further. Whether the outcome seems fair then depends on how much priority to the well-being of the poor we believe justice requires; it also depends on political judgements about the feasibility of alternative strategies for achieving more egalitarian reforms. Oregon makes rationing public and explicit, as justice requires, but it is not clear how community values influence the ranking of services; ultimately, the rationing process is fair only if we may rely on the voting power of the poor.
Children; Costs and Benefits; Decision Making; Economics; Evaluation; Females; Financial Support; Government; Government Financing; Health; Health Care; Health Care Delivery; Health Services; Indigents; Justice; Life; Moral Policy; Policy Analysis; Public Participation; Public Policy; Power; Quality of Life; Resource Allocation; Standards; State Government; Values;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
How to Achieve Fair Distribution of ARTs in 3 by 5: Fair Process and Legitmacy in Patient Selection Daniels, Norman (2004-01-26)This document was prepared as a background paper for the Consultation on Equitable Access to Treatment and Care for HIV/AIDS, co-sponsored by WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and held at WHO Headquarters ...