Bioethicist Gopal Sreenivasan, PhD, asserts that a seemingly severe approach -- rationing -- is not only part of a workable solution, but a moral duty.

Most people believe that health care systems should ideally provide citizens who are sick with whatever health-related goods and services they need. While this model may appear at first glance to be the equitable way to meet people’s health care needs, it is not really morally defensible on a national scale.

This is because a nation’s health is not the only important good with a claim to the finite pool of social resources -- there are also education, defense, transportation, and infrastructure, to name just a few others.

The more society allocates to health-related goods and services, the less it can allocate to anything else.

In other words, when access to every medically necessary good and service leads to overspending on health care, a country is forced to underspend on schools, roads, and other critical services. This is incompatible with justice, which forbids robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Countries are therefore morally obligated to observe a strict limit on health care spending. In effect, they must fix a ceiling on their annual health care budgets before knowing the total cost of the medically necessary care required by their population over the year.

By supporting this approach, a nation commits itself to rationing the health care goods and services it provides its citizens.

Building the Case for Rationing

Since rationing means that citizens will be denied some medically necessary care, people are often understandably uncomfortable with this notion. Most don't want to say it's acceptable to withhold health care benefits or to settle for anything less than what is, at least in principle, possible.

It seems uncompassionate, even unfair.

Still, the evidence is clear and mounting that we must set limits on health care expenditures. Already, the United States spends more on health care -- both absolutely and as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) -- than nearly every other country by far.

Even worse, in America, the growth rate of medical spending has consistently surpassed the growth rate of the GDP in recent years.

In fact, the share of the GDP the U.S. spends on health care -- about 16 percent -- is projected to reach nearly 20 percent by 2017. (The average for countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is 9 percent.)

When the percentage of GDP spent on health is rising, that means that health care spending is gobbling up resources that were previously spent on other goods. As long as the growth rate in health care spending outstrips the growth rate in GDP itself, this diversion of resources from other legitimate expenditures only gets worse.

At current growth rates, health care spending will eventually cross the line into claiming resources that should be spent on other goods, no matter where you draw that line. Since it is difficult to defend a more-than-15-percent share of GDP designated for health care, that line may have already been crossed.

Of course, it's hard to suppress the thought that if only we could eliminate all the waste and inefficiency in the health care system, we really could have it all -- and not have to settle for rationing medically necessary services.

Yet while every little bit helps, it's highly unlikely that improving efficiency and eradicating waste would allow us to cover everything, as the "Growth in national health expenditures under various scenarios" chart makes clear.

The three lines represent projections of health spending under different assumptions about possible cost savings. The top line (baseline national health expenditures) projects current growth trends without any cost savings. The "one-time savings scenario" assumes significant initial savings (e.g., from eliminating waste), but no change in the underlying growth trend. The "slowing trend scenario" assumes the reverse: no significant initial savings, but a smaller underlying growth rate.

Even the best-case scenario (slowing trend) has health care spending almost doubling between 2005 and 2015. That is because new technology, rather than waste or inefficiency, is the fundamental driver of growth in health care spending.

Asking the Tough Questions

But how do we decide where to cut costs? The first step is to establish a firm limit on health care spending that is independent of (and less than) what is technically possible to spend on health care, even when spending is restricted to medically necessary services and all waste is eliminated.

However, this does mean accepting that some medically necessary and beneficial services will not be covered, because we cannot reasonably afford it.

The next step is to develop adequate measures of the comparative cost and effectiveness of different effective medical interventions. The goal would be to have a rational and accountable method of deciding which interventions are most worthwhile to cover with a limited budget and which ones, regrettably, must be left out. But this is another topic for another day.

The questions of how to ration health care, and how much care we as a country can reasonably afford to pay for, will not be easy to answer. But accepting rationing as a necessary and moral approach remains the first step toward resolving those questions -- and creating a more just health care system.

Gopal Sreenivasan, PhD, is the Lester Crown University Professor of Ethics and a professor of philosophy in Duke's Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities, and History of Medicine. His research in bioethics largely focuses on the broad notions of health and justice.

Written by Robin Stott and Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, and published simultaneously in the BMJ, the Lancet and the Finnish Medical Journal, the editorials warn climate policy and health policy must not be overlooked. Health care professionals must put human health at the forefront of climate change negotiation.

Climate Change Already Affects Human Health

Dr. Roberts writing in the Lancet warns, “Climate change already affects human health, and, if no action is taken, problems such as malnutrition, deaths and injury due to extreme weather conditions, and change in geographical distribution of disease vectors will worsen.”

The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, and the Finnish Medical Journal are working together to highlight the importance of the effects of climate change on human health. Climate change policy is the topic of discussion at a high-level UN meeting Nov 29-Dec 10, 2010 in Cancun, Mexico.

Stott and Roberts say, "If the delegates at this conference think that obesity and climate change are unrelated, they would be wrong. The planet is getting hotter, its people are getting fatter, and the use of fossil fuel energy is the cause of both."

"We invite colleagues everywhere to join us in tackling this major public health scourge of the 21st century." Advocating for a low carbon economy can only have a positive impact on human health that "could be the next great public health advance”. They cite the benefits of more physical activity, a lower incidence of cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and even depression. Eating less meat and switching to a low carbon diet and fewer cars would reduce food prices.

The Medical journals are asking health care professionals to take the Climate and Health Council pledge They say failure to radically reduce carbon emissions would mean “global catastrophe.” The medical journals are calling on health care professionals “to ensure that the links between climate policy and health policy are known and fully taken into account in all climate change negotiations."

1. busca el enlace Administrar en esta misma página.
   
2. Deberás introducir tu clave para poder acceder.

Una vez dentro podrás:

• editar los artículos y comentarios (menú Artículos);
  
• publicar un nuevo texto (Escribir nuevo);
  
• modificar la apariencia y configurar tu bitácora (Opciones);
  
• volver a esta página y ver el blog tal y como lo verían tus visitantes (Salir al blog).

Puedes eliminar este artículo (en Artículos > eliminar). ¡Que lo disfrutes!]]>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:00 +0000