Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T00:01:10.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accountability for Rationing — Theory into Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Christopher Newdick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most now recognize the inevitability of rationing in modern health care systems. The elastic nature of the concept of “health need,” our natural human sympathy for those in distress, the increased range of conditions for which treatment is available, the “greying” of the population; all expand demand for care in ways that exceed the supply of resources to provide it. UK governments, however, have found this truth difficult to present and have not encouraged open and candid public debate about choices in health care. Indeed, successive governments have presented the opposite view, that “if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone.” And they have been rightly criticized for misleading the public and then blaming clinical and managerial staffin the National Health Service (NHS) when expectations have been disappointed.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 660 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

E.g., Department of Health, The New NHS – Modern, Dependable (London: HMSO, Cm. 3807, 1997): Paragraph 1.5. Yet, in 1999 the UK government told the European Commission under Council Directive 89/105/EEC (the Transparency Directive) that: “A medicinal product … may be excluded (from the NHS) where the forecast aggregate cost … could not be justified having regard to … the priorities for expenditure of NHS resources.” See R. (Pfizer Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Health, [2003] 2 Common Market Law Reports 19.Google Scholar
See the criticism by Professor SirKennedy, Ian in Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, 1984–95 (London: Cm. 5207, 2001): 57, at paragraph 31.Google Scholar
See generally, Newdick, C., Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing and Resources in the NHS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): Chapter 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
However, QALYs may under-devalue other ethical objectives, such as equality, clinical need and ability to benefit. See Daniels, N., “Four Unsolved Rationing Problems: A Challenge,” Hastings Centre Report 24, no. 4 (1994): 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Klein, R. and Redmayne, S., Managing Scarcity – Priority Setting and Rationing in the National Health Service (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
See Daniels, N. and Sabin, J., Setting Limits fairly – Can we Learn to Share Medical Resources? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Ham, C. and Robert, G., Reasonable Rationing – International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See R. v. Birmingham HA, ex p Collier (unreported, Court of Appeal, 1988) discussed in Newdick, C., Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing and Resources in the NHS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): at 98–100.Google Scholar
See National Health Service Act 1977, s 97, as amended.Google Scholar
S1, National Health Service Act 1977. The duty is imposed on the Secretary of State and delegated to PCTs.Google Scholar
Medical Law Reports 327 no. 8 (1997).Google Scholar
See, New Drugs for Multiple Sclerosis, Executive Letter (1995) 97 (Leeds: National Health Service Executive, 1995).Google Scholar
Department of Health Choose and Book – Patient's Choice of Hospital and Booked Appointment (London: Department of Health, 2004).Google Scholar
Department of Health Press Release, February 25 and <www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG011fullguideline.pdf> (last visited October 27, 2005).+(last+visited+October+27,+2005).>Google Scholar
[1999] Lloyd's Reports: Medical 399.Google Scholar
Ibid, at 408.Google Scholar
Ibid, at 412.Google Scholar
See the European Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (EC 141/2000) and, in the US, the Orphan Drugs Act 1983. The “opportunity costs” of orphan drugs are discussed in McCabe, C., Claxton, K. and Tsuchiya, A., “Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we Value Rarity?” British Medical Journal 331 (2005); 1016 and Burls, A., Austin, D. and Moore, D., “Commissioning for rare diseases: View from the Frontline,” British Medical Journal 331 (2005); 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English Web High Court (2001) Admin 535.Google Scholar
Ibid, paragraphs 77 and 80.Google Scholar
Exceptionally, in Simms [2003] 1 All England Reports 669, the court encouraged use of experimental treatment for patients suffering CJD.Google Scholar
Available at, <http://www.berkshire.nhs.uk/priorities/policies/ethical_framework_051104.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Available at, <http://www.berkshire.nhs.uk/priorities> (Last visited October 20, 2005).+(Last+visited+October+20,+2005).>Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1999, SI 1999, No 220, amended by SI 1999, No 2219.Google Scholar
National Health Service Act 1977, Section 17.Google Scholar
Secretary of State's Directions of 2003. NICE guidance remains discretionary in Wales.Google Scholar
See Guide to the Technology Appraisal Process (London: NICE, 2004): Paragraph 6.2, 6.1–2.Google Scholar
See Guide to Methods of Technology Appraisal (London: NICE, 2004): Paragraph 6.2.5.Google Scholar
See Technology Appraisal Programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2003): at 32.Google Scholar
Raftery, J., “NICE: Faster Access to Modern Treatments? Analysis of Guidance on Health Technologies,” British Medical Journal 323 (2002): 1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Guide to Methods of Technology Appraisal (London: NICE, 2004): Paragraphs 6.2, 6.10–11.Google Scholar
Appraisal Consultation Document: Imatinib for Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (London: NICE, 2004).Google Scholar
See Tackling Cancer in England – Saving More Lives (HC 364, Session 2003–04): at 44, discussed in Newdick, C., Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing and Resources (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005): at 206–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Social Value Judgements – Guidelines for the Institute and its Advisory Bodies (London: NICE draft report, 2005).Google Scholar
Response to the Report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry (London: NICE, 2001): at 8.Google Scholar
S11, Health and Social Care Act 2001.Google Scholar
Patient Involvement in Health (London: Department of Health, 2004): at 28.Google Scholar
See The Concern of the Scottish Executive: Consultation and Public Involvement in Service Change – Draft Interim Guidance (Health Department Letter 42, 2002): Annex C, at paragraph 9.Google Scholar
R. v. North and East Devon HA, ex p. Coughlan, , Lloyds Reports: Medical 306, at 322 col. 1.Google Scholar
For many of the difficulties associated with extending democracy in the NHS, see Klein, R. and New, B., Two Cheers? Reflections on the Health of NHS Democracy (London: King's Fund, 1998).Google Scholar
Report of the First Meeting of the NICE Citizens' Council (London: NICE, 2002): At 8.Google Scholar
Ibid, at 14.Google Scholar
Ibid, at 19 and 22.Google Scholar
The transparency debate is led by The Netherlands, the Nordic countries and New Zealand, see generally Jost, T., ed., Health Care Coverage Determinations – An International Comparative Study (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005); Ham, C., Robert, G., Reasonable Rationing – International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Harrison, D., Desperately Seeking Solutions – Rationing Health Care (London: Longmans, 1997).Google Scholar