首页> 外文期刊>Public health reviews >Ethics of Resource Allocation and Rationing Medical Care in a Time of Fiscal Restraint - US and Europe
【24h】

Ethics of Resource Allocation and Rationing Medical Care in a Time of Fiscal Restraint - US and Europe

机译:财政紧缩时期的资源分配和配给医疗保健伦理-美国和欧洲

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: All resources are scarce. The ethical dilemma in health care is how to balance the precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and distributive justice. Rationing may affect three dimensions of coverage: the share of the population covered, the services covered, and the extent to which services are covered. United States : The US spends 50 percent more per capita on health care than any other country while achieving worse health than many. Poorly coordinated insurance mechanisms leave 19 percent of the population uninsured. Until passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, health care was effectively a privilege, not a right. While PPACA seeks to rectify this, by 2019 five percent of non-elderly US residents will likely remain uninsured. Europe : Most European countries provide universal or near-universal population coverage to people resident in the respective country. Central and Eastern European countries inherited the Soviet-era commitment to universal coverage free at the point of use. Faced with a decline in government spending on health, almost all of them reduced the scope of services and introduced official user fees. In contrast, other European countries expanded entitlement to publicly funded health care, resulting in greater equity. A number of countries have attempted to depoliticize decisions on rationing by using health technology assessments and dedicated agencies. Discussion : Resource allocation and rationing differ considerably between the US and Europe. In the US, where social welfare remains controversial, there are few restrictions on the use of health care technology regardless of cost or clinical effectiveness. European countries engage in more explicit debates about these limits, though these are complicated by media and lobby power. Conclusion : The ethical issues in the US largely revolve around rationing care by eligibility for insurance coverage, whereas in Europe they are more concerned with the scope of publicly funded services to all. On both sides of the Atlantic, public debates are needed about the financial sustainability of health systems, the tradeoffs between cost-containment and broader societal and health system goals, the role of the welfare state, and the limits of publicly financed health care.
机译:背景:所有资源都很稀缺。卫生保健中的伦理困境是如何平衡自治,慈善和分配正义的戒律。配给可能会影响覆盖面的三个方面:覆盖人口的比例,覆盖的服务以及覆盖的范围。美国:美国在人均医疗保健上的花费比其他任何国家都高50%,而在健康方面却比许多国家都要差。协调不力的保险机制使19%的人口没有保险。在2010年通过《患者保护和负担得起的护理法案》(PPACA)之前,医疗保健实际上是一种特权,而不是一项权利。尽管PPACA试图纠正这一问题,但到2019年,美国有5%的非老年人居民可能仍未投保。欧洲:大多数欧洲国家为各自国家的居民提供普遍或接近普遍的人口覆盖率。中东欧国家继承了苏联时代对在使用时免费提供普遍覆盖的承诺。面对政府在卫生方面的支出下降,几乎所有国家都缩减了服务范围并引入了官方用户费用。相比之下,其他欧洲国家扩大了获得公共资助的医疗保健的权利,从而产生了更大的公平性。许多国家已经尝试通过使用卫生技术评估和专门机构来使配给决定的政治化。讨论:美国和欧洲之间的资源分配和配给有很大不同。在社会福利仍然引起争议的美国,无论成本或临床效果如何,对医疗技术的使用几乎没有限制。欧洲国家就这些限制进行了更为明确的辩论,尽管媒体和游说力量使这些限制变得复杂。结论:美国的伦理问题主要围绕按合格保险资格分配护理,而在欧洲,他们更关心公共资助的服务范围。在大西洋两岸,需要就卫生系统的财务可持续性,成本控制与更广泛的社会和卫生系统目标之间的权衡,福利国家的作用以及公共资助的卫生保健的局限性进行公开辩论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号