1. Three case studies in making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage
- Author
-
Voorhoeve, A., Edejer, T. T. T., Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., Snowden, J., Basenya, O., Bayarsaikhan, D., Chentaf, I., Eyal, N., Folsom, A., Tun Hussein, R. H., Morales, C., Ostmann, F., Ottersen, T., Prakongsai, P., Saenz, C., Saleh, K., Sommanustweechai, A., Wikler, D., and Zakariah, A.
- Subjects
RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine - Abstract
The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.
- Published
- 2016