IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v72y2011i8p1333-1341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model

Author

Listed:
  • Moreira, Tiago

Abstract

Explicit health care rationing or priority-setting is the use of institutional procedures for the systematic allocation of resources within health care systems. With the establishment of priority setting systems in various countries in the past two decades, research has been conducted on their principles, methods and institutional aspects. This paper draws on the sociology of science and technology to propose an uncertainty-focused conceptual model of the relationship between knowledge practises and political processes in health care rationing. Taking a case-study approach, the paper explores the public controversy about whether dementia drugs should be available on the UK National Health Service. It shows how three aspects of the controversy - loose institutional framing, open membership and hybrid knowledge - worked together to enable the use of a 'pragmatic balance' between rules and cases. Placing this outcome within the space of possibilities suggested by the model, the paper suggests that accepting and fostering the exploration of uncertainty at the core of health care priority setting systems should provide those systems with increased social robustness.

Suggested Citation

  • Moreira, Tiago, 2011. "Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1333-1341, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:8:p:1333-1341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(11)00113-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniels, Norman & Sabin, James E., 2008. "Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to share resources for health," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780195325959.
    2. Moreira, Tiago, 2005. "Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1975-1985, May.
    3. Cambrosio, Alberto & Keating, Peter & Schlich, Thomas & Weisz, George, 2006. "Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 189-199, July.
    4. Milewa, Timothy, 2006. "Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3102-3112, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    2. Matthias Benzer, 2020. "NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 165-183, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bourret, Pascale & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2011. "Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 816-824, September.
    2. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    3. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    4. Lynne-Joseph, Alyssa, 2024. "The reproduction of knowledge hierarchies in transgender medicine: Professional, lay, and global expertise in clinical practice guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    5. Johansson, Kjell Arne & Nygaard, Elizabeth & Herlofsen, Berit & Lindemark, Frode, 2017. "Implementation of the 2013 amended Patients’ Rights Act in Norway: Clinical priority guidelines and access to specialised health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 346-353.
    6. Lösch, Lea & Willems, Willemine & Bongers, Marloes & Timen, Aura & Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun, 2023. "Kaleidoscopic integration: Advancing the integration of incommensurable knowledge in healthcare guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).
    7. Kapiriri, Lydia & Vélez, Claudia-Marcela & Aguilera, Bernardo & Essue, Beverley M. & Nouvet, Elysee & Donya, Razavi s & Ieystn, Williams & Marion, Danis & Susan, Goold & Abelson, Julia & Suzanne, Kiwa, 2024. "A global comparative analysis of the the inclusion of priority setting in national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A reflection on the methods and the accessibility of the plans," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    9. Matthias Benzer, 2020. "NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 165-183, June.
    10. Suzanne Robinson & Helen Dickinson & Tim Freeman & Iestyn Williams, 2011. "Disinvestment in health— the challenges facing general practitioner (GP) commissioners," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 145-148, March.
    11. Hausman, Daniel M., 2023. "Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    12. Leah Rand & Zackary Berger, 2018. "Prior Authorization as a Potential Support of Patient-Centered Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(4), pages 371-375, August.
    13. Allen, Davina, 2009. "From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 354-361, August.
    14. Keshet, Yael & Popper-Giveon, Ariela, 2017. "Neutrality in medicine and health professionals from ethnic minority groups: The case of Arab health professionals in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 35-42.
    15. Broqvist, Mari & Sandman, Lars & Garpenby, Peter & Krevers, Barbro, 2018. "The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 630-637.
    16. Rotteveel, Adriënne H. & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & van Exel, Job & de Wit, G. Ardine, 2022. "To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    17. Lagerlöf, Helena & Eriksson, Lena & Sager, Morten, 2024. "Organizing implementation in healthcare: Balancing orders of worth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    18. Henderson, Rebecca, 2024. "Invisible cancers: Seeing, knowing, enacting and proving cancers in Haiti," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    19. Geltzer, Anna, 2009. "When the standards aren't standard: Evidence-based medicine in the Russian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 526-532, February.
    20. Lawton, Julia & Jenkins, Nicholas & Darbyshire, Julie & Farmer, Andrew & Holman, Rury & Hallowell, Nina, 2012. "Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: A qualitative study of health professional experiences and views," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 574-581.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:8:p:1333-1341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.