Many healthcare agencies are producing evidence-based guidance and policy that may determine the availability of particular healthcare products and procedures, effectively rationing aspects of healthcare. They claim legitimacy for their decisions through reference to evidence-based scientific method and the implementation of just decision-making procedures, often citing the criteria of ‘accountability for reasonableness’; publicity, relevance, challenge and revision, and regulation. Central to most decision methods are estimates of gains in quality-adjusted life-years, a measure that combines the length and quality of survival. (...) However, all agree that the QALY alone is not a sufficient measure of all relevant aspects of potential healthcare benefits, and a number of value assessment frameworks have been suggested. I argue that the practical implementation of these procedures has the potential to lead to a distorted assessment of value. Undue weight may be ascribed to certain attributes, particularly those that favour commercial or political interests, while other attributes that are highly valued by society, particularly those related to care processes, may be omitted or undervalued. This may be compounded by a lack of transparency to relevant stakeholders, resulting in an inability for them to participate in, or challenge, the decisions. The makes it likely that costly new technologies, for which inflated prices can be justified by the current value frameworks, are displacing aspects of healthcare that are highly valued by society. (shrink)

It has been claimed that beneath the government rhetoric of patient choice, no real choice exists either in law or in National Health Service policy. Thus, choice is considered to be a fallacy in that patients are not able to demand specific treatment, but are only able to express preferences amongst the available options. This article argues that, rather than considering choice only in terms of patient autonomy or consumer rights, choice ought to be seen as serving other functions: Choice (...) serves as a mechanism of destabilisation, i.e., as a lever for change. This is apparent at the level of patient and doctor, and at the level of patient and health authority, but even more so, at the level of government. Patient choice, rather than benefiting the individual, can have effects on a wider scale. It encourages change and reform in healthcare practices and in the NHS institutions. (shrink)