Criteria For the Fairness of Health Financing Decisions: A Scoping Review

Health Policy and Planning 38 (1):i13–i35 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework’s four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Book Review: Health Financing for Poor People: Resource Mobilization and Risk Sharing.Ross Mullner - 2005 - Inquiry: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 42 (1):98-99.
Is fragmented financing bad for your health?Steven D. Pizer & John A. Gardner - 2011 - Inquiry: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 48 (2):109-122.
On Fairness.Craig L. Carr - 2000 - Routledge.
The Effects of Reinsurance in Financing Children's Health Care.D. E. M. Sappington, S. K. Aydede, A. Dick, B. Vogel & E. Shenkman - 2006 - Inquiry: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 43 (1):23-33.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-11-23

Downloads
22 (#712,478)

6 months
18 (#143,743)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Voorhoeve
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references