|
Section A
The problem of how health-care
resources should be allocated or apportioned, so that they are distributed
in both, the most just and most efficient way, is not a new one. Every
health system in an economically developed society is faced with the need
to decide (either formally or informally) what proportion of the
community’s total resources should be spent on health-care; how resources
are to be apportioned; what diseases and disabilities and which forms of
treatment are to be given priority; which members of the community are to
be given special consideration in respect of their health needs; and which
forms of treatment are the most cost-effective.
Section B
What is new is that, from the
1950s onwards, there have been certain general changes in outlook about the
finitude of resources as a whole and of health-care resources in
particular, as well as more specific changes regarding the clientele of
health-care resources and the cost to the community of those resources.
Thus, in the 1950s and 1960s, there emerged an awareness in Western
societies that resources for the provision of fossil fuel energy were
finite and exhaustible and that the capacity of nature or the environment
to sustain economic development and population was also finite. In other
words, we became aware of the obvious fact that there were ‘limits to
growth’. The new consciousness that there were also severe limits to
health-care resources was part of this general revelation of the obvious.
Looking back, it now seems quite incredible that in the national health
systems that emerged in many countries in the years immediately after the
1939-45 World War, it was assumed without question that all the basic
health needs of any community could be satisfied, at least in principle;
the ‘invisible hand’ of economic progress would provide.
Section C
However, at exactly the same
time as this new realisation of the finite character of health-care
resources was sinking in, an awareness of a contrary kind was developing in
Western societies: that people have a basic right to health-care as a
necessary condition of a proper human life. Like education, political and
legal processes and institutions, public order, communication, transport
and money supply, health-care came to be seen as one of the fundamental
social facilities necessary for people to exercise their other rights as
autonomous human beings. People are not in a position to exer- | cise
personal liberty and to be self-determining if they are poverty-stricken,
or deprived of basic education, or do not live within a context of law and
order. In the same way, basic health-care is a condition of the exercise of
autonomy.
Section D
Although the language of
‘rights’ sometimes leads to confusion, by the late 1970s it was recognised
in most societies that people have a right to health-care (though there has
been considerable resistance in the United States to the idea that there is
a formal right to health-care). It is also accepted that this right
generates an obligation or duty for the state to ensure that adequate
health-care resources are provided out of the public purse. The state has
no obligation to provide a health-care system itself, but to ensure that
such a system is provided. Put another way, basic health-care is now
recognised as a ‘public good’, rather than a ‘private good’ that one is
expected to buy for oneself. As the 1976 declaration of the World Health Organisation
put it: ‘The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one
of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race,
religion, political belief, economic or social condition.’ As has just been
remarked, in a liberal society basic health is seen as one of the
indispensable conditions for the exercise of personal autonomy.
Section E
Just at the time when it
became obvious that health-care resources could not possibly meet the
demands being made upon them, people were demanding that their fundamental
right to health-care be satisfied by the state. The second set of more
specific changes that have led to the present concern about the
distribution of health-care resources stems from the dramatic rise in
health costs in most OECD1 countries, accompanied by large-scale
demographic and social changes which have meant, to take one example, that
elderly people are now major (and relatively very expensive) consumers of
health-care resources. Thus in OECD countries as a whole, health costs
increased from 3.8% of GDP1 2 in 1960 to 7% of GDP in 1980, and it has been
predicted that the proportion of health costs to GDP will continue to
increase. (In the US the current figure is about 12% of GDP, and in
Australia about 7.8% of GDP)
As a consequence, during the
1980s a kind of doomsday scenario (analogous to similar doomsday
extrapolations about energy needs and fossil fuels or about population
increases) was projected by health administrators, economists and
politicians, i In this scenario, ever-rising health costs were matched
against static or declining resources.
1Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development
2Gross
Domestic Product
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments