Obligations of low income countries in ensuring equity in global health financing.

BACKGROUND: Despite common recognition of joint responsibility for global health by all countries particularly to ensure justice in global health, current discussions of countries' obligations for global health largely ignore obligations of developing countries. This is especially the case with regards to obligations relating to health financing. Bearing in mind that it is not possible to achieve justice in global health without achieving equity in health financing at both domestic and global levels, our aim is to show how fulfilling the obligation we propose will make it easy to achieve equity in health financing at both domestic and international levels. DISCUSSION: Achieving equity in global health financing is a crucial step towards achieving justice in global health. Our general view is that current discussions on global health equity largely ignore obligations of Low Income Country (LIC) governments and we recommend that these obligations should be mainstreamed in current discussions. While we recognise that various obligations need to be fulfilled in order to ultimately achieve justice in global health, for lack of space we prioritise obligations for health financing. Basing on the evidence that in most LICs health is not given priority in annual budget allocations, we propose that LIC governments should bear an obligation to allocate a certain minimum percent of their annual domestic budget resources to health, while they await external resources to supplement domestic ones. We recommend and demonstrate a mechanism for coordinating this obligation so that if the resulting obligations are fulfilled by both LIC and HIC governments it will be easy to achieve equity in global health financing. Although achieving justice in global health will depend on fulfillment of different categories of obligations, ensuring inter- and intra-country equity in health financing is pivotal. This can be achieved by requiring all LIC governments to allocate a certain optimal per cent of their domestic budget resources to health while they await external resources to top up in order to cover the whole cost of the minimum health opportunities for LIC citizens.

Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework.

Economists' approaches to priority setting focus on the principles of opportunity cost, marginal analysis and choice under scarcity. These approaches are based on the premise that it is possible to design a rational priority setting system that will produce legitimate changes in resource allocation. However, beyond issuing guidance at the national level, economic approaches to priority setting have had only a moderate impact in practice. In particular, local health service organizations - such as health authorities, health maintenance organizations, hospitals and healthcare trusts - have had difficulty implementing evidence from economic appraisals. Yet, in the context of making decisions between competing claims on scarce health service resources, economic tools and thinking have much to offer. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss ten evidence-based guidelines for the successful design and implementation of a program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) priority setting exercise. PBMA is a framework that explicitly recognizes the need to balance pragmatic and ethical considerations with economic rationality when making resource allocation decisions. While the ten guidelines are drawn from the PBMA framework, they may be generalized across a range of economic approaches to priority setting.

Ethical budgets: a critical success factor in implementing new public management accountability in health care.

New public management accountability is increasingly being introduced into health-care systems throughout the world - albeit with mixed success. This paper examines the successful introduction of new management accounting systems among general practitioners (GPs) as an aspect of reform in the Italian health-care system. In particular, the study examines the critical role played by the novel concept of an 'ethical budget' in engaging the willing cooperation of the medical profession in implementing change. Utilizing a qualitative research design, with in-depth interviews with GPs, hospital doctors and managers, along with archival analysis, the present study finds that management accounting can be successfully implemented among medical professionals provided there is alignment between the management imperative and the ethical framework in which doctors practise their profession. The concept of an 'ethical budget' has been shown to be an innovative and effective tool in achieving this alignment.

Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting?

OBJECTIVE: Limited resources mean that decision-makers must set priorities among competing opportunities. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is an economic approach that focuses on optimizing benefits with available resources. Accountability for reasonableness (A4R) is an ethics approach that focuses on ensuring fair priority-setting processes. PBMA and A4R have been used separately to provide decision-makers with advice about how to set priorities within limited resources. The goals of this research were to use the A4R framework to evaluate the fairness of using PBMA for priority setting and to assess how A4R might make PBMA fairer. METHODS: Qualitative case studies to describe priority setting using PBMA in the Calgary Health Region (Alberta, Canada) evaluated using A4R as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: The use of PBMA for priority setting was fairer than previous priority setting because of its emphasis on explicit rational decision-making. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by collecting data related to the decision criteria, by developing a communication plan to engage internal and external stakeholders about priority-setting, and by providing a formal mechanism to review priority-setting decisions and resolve disputes. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for combining A4R and PBMA in a more comprehensive approach to priority setting, which uses a fair priority-setting process to reach decisions aimed at achieving optimal benefits with available resources.