Litigating the right to health: what can we learn from a comparative law and health care systems approach.

This article presents research demonstrating that the right to health plays different roles in different types of health systems. In high-income countries with tax-funded health systems, we usually encounter a lack of an enforceable right to heath. In contrast, rights play a more significant role in social health insurance/managed competition systems (which are present in a mixture of high-income and middle-income countries). There is concern, for example in Colombia, that a high volume of rights litigation can challenge the very sustainability of a public health care system and distort resources away from those most in need. Finally, in middle-income countries with big gaps between a poor public health system and a rich private one, we are more likely to find an express constitutional right to health care (or one is inferred from, for example, the right to life). In some of these countries, constitutional rights were included as part of the transition to democracy and an attempt to address huge inequities within society. Here the scale of health inequities suggests that courts need to be bolder in their interpretation of health care rights. We conclude that in adjudicating health rights, courts should scrutinize decision-making through the lens of health equity and equality to better achieve the inherent values of health human rights.

Is there a human right to private health care?

In recent years we have noticed an increase in the turn to rights analysis in litigation relating to access to health care. Examining litigation, we can notice a contradiction between on the one hand the ability of the right to health to reinforce privatization and commodification of health care, by rearticulating claims to private health care in terms of human rights, and on the other hand, its ability to reinforce and reinstate public values, especially that of equality, against the background of privatization and commodification. While many hope that rights discourse will do the latter, and secure that access to health care should occur on the basis of need as opposed to ability to pay, it has actually been used to attempt to advance arguments that will allow access to private or semiprivate health insurance in ways that may exacerbate inequality. These types of arguments won ground in the Canadian Supreme Court, but were rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court. In order to avoid this co-optation of right to health, a notion of rights that incorporates the principles of substantive equality is required. Otherwise, one of the unintended consequences of inserting rights analysis into public health care may be that it will reinforce rather than challenge privatization in a way that may increase inequalities.