Prioritizing health‐care funding

Abstract

In the face of limited resources, on what basis should we prioritize health-care funding? The most influential consideration should be the knowledge that an intervention does something beneficial for the person who receives it. Rather than using imposed knowledge or knowledge obtained by grace, modern medicine uses knowledge obtained by rational thought. Traditionally, two philosophical schools of rational thought support medical interventions: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricist knowledge underpins the treatment of risk, while rationalist knowledge underpins the treatment of disease. To introduce reasoned order into the rationing process we must understand the limitations inherent in the application of these two forms of knowledge. Why are screening programmes for breast and uterine cervical cancer supported while severe restrictions are placed on treatments for chronic arthritis? Can the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs be measured? Empiricism has achieved an unchallenged ascendancy in modern health-care delivery. Is this ascendancy justified? There is a need for reference criteria to compare the benefits of competing interventions across disciplines. As a starting point for debate we propose that interventions should be given a priority based on how closely they fulfil five criteria: knowledge of disease pathophysiology, measurability of short-term and long-term benefits, incidence of serious adverse effects and affordability. It is only by using and refining such funding criteria that better public understanding of the rationing process will be achieved and political interference minimized.