Strengthening fairness, transparency and accountability in health care priority setting at district level in Tanzania

Article English OPEN
Daniels, Norman (2011)

Every health system has to make decisions about how to use limited resources to meet competing claims about diverse health needs. In all systems, national priority setting, including budgeting, generally imposes constraints on other levels of decision-making - be it in states or provinces, districts or cities, or local health authorities, hospitals, or health insurance plans. Decisions at any of these levels often are contested because they create winners and losers, sometimes on matters of life and death. Winners and losers have conflicting interests and claims. What is worse, we lack consensus on the distributive principles capable of resolving disputes about who should get what. Reasonable ethical disagreement thus surrounds these conflicts of claims and interests. In addition, our economic tools for resource allocation, such as costeffectiveness analysis have limited ethical acceptability, for they may controversially push us to maximize aggregate health benefits without adequate consideration of the fairness of the distribution that results.(Published: 7 November 2011)Citation: Global Health Action 2011, 4: 8472 - DOI: 10.3402/gha.v4i0.8472
  • References (9)

    1. Daniels N. Rationing fairly: programmatic considerations. Bioethics 1993; 7: 224 33.

    2. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 30 34, 43 66.

    3. Maluka S. Strengthening fairness, transparency and accountability in health care priority setting at district level in Tanzania: opportunities, challenges and the way forward. PhD thesis, Umea˚ University, Sweden, 2011. Available from: http://umu.diva-portal. org/smash/record.jsf ?searchId 10&pid diva2:399505

    4. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Affairs 1997; 26: 202 50.

    5. Maluka S, Kamuzora P, San Sebastian M, Byskov J, Ndawi B, Hurtig AK. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: perceptions of stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res 2010a; 10: 322 34.

    6. Maluka S, Kamuzora P, San Sebastian M, Byskov J, Olsen OE, Shayo E, et al. Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework. Soc Sci Med 2010b; 71: 751 9.

    7. Byskov J. Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems. Paper presented at the global ministerial forum on research for health, November 17 19, Bamako, Bali; 2008. Available from: http://www.reactforhealth.net/files/MgtAdmin.Docs%20and%20 latest/Dissemination/Byskov%20J,%20et%20al.%20REACT_paper Bamako2009.pdf [cited 26 July 2011].

    8. Bossert T. Analyzing the decentralization of health systems in developing countries: decision space, innovation and performance. Social Science and Medicine 1998; 47(10): 1513 27.

    9. Bossert T, Beuvais JC. Decentralization of health systems in Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and the Philippines: a comparative analysis of decision space. Health Policy Plan 2002; 17(1): 14 31.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark