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

Health and Human Rights 18 (2):11-22 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VOOTCS
Revision history
First archival date: 2016-06-10
Latest version: 2 (2016-12-08)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-06-10

Total downloads
154 ( #16,046 of 37,147 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #20,904 of 37,147 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.