Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage: Applying Principles to Difficult Cases.

Abstract-Progress toward universal health coverage (UHC) requires making difficult trade-offs. In this journal, Dr. Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, has endorsed the principles for making such decisions put forward by the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and UHC. These principles include maximizing population health, priority for the worse off, and shielding people from health-related financial risks. But how should one apply these principles in particular cases, and how should one adjudicate between them when their demands conflict? This article by some members of the Consultative Group and a diverse group of health policy professionals addresses these questions. It considers three stylized versions of actual policy dilemmas. Each of these cases pertains to one of the three key dimensions of progress toward UHC: which services to cover first, which populations to prioritize for coverage, and how to move from out-of-pocket expenditures to prepayment with pooling of funds. Our cases are simplified to highlight common trade-offs. Though we make specific recommendations, our primary aim is to demonstrate both the form and substance of the reasoning involved in striking a fair balance between competing interests on the road to UHC.

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

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 those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.

Separate goals, converging priorities: on the ethics of treatment as prevention.

Recent evidence confirming that the administration of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to HIV-infected persons may effectively reduce their risk of transmission has revived the discussion about priority setting in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The fact that the very same drugs can be used both for treatment purposes and for preventive purposes (Treatment as Prevention) has been seen as paradigm-shifting and taken to spark a new controversy: In a context of scarce resources, should the allocation of ARVs be prioritized based on the goal of providing treatment, or on the goal of preventing the spread of the HIV epidemic? Contributions to this discussion tend to assume that treatment and prevention constitute two divergent goals that entail conflicting priorities. We challenge that assumption on the basis of both conceptual and empirical examination. We argue that, as far as the provision of ARVs to HIV-infected persons is concerned, the goals of treatment and prevention do not entail conflicting priorities; to the contrary, they dictate converging strategies for the optimal allocation of ARVs. In light of the current evidence, the concept of Treatment as Prevention can indeed be seen as paradigm-shifting, yet in a novel way: Rather than extending the tension between the goals of treatment and prevention to the level of drug-allocation, it dissolves this tension by providing a rationale for a unified strategy for allocating ARVs.