Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage

Health and Human Rights 18 (2):11-22 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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 the worse off, and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.

Author Profiles

Nir Eyal
Harvard University
Alex Voorhoeve
London School of Economics

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-06-10

Downloads
616 (#37,294)

6 months
112 (#44,997)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?