BMJ 1995;310:1483-1484 (10 June)

Editorials

Health care rationing

The British approach seems likely to be based on guidelines

The recent decision of Cambridge Health Authority not to fund a second bone marrow transplant operation for a 10 year old girl has brought to public attention what has long been clear to doctors, managers, and politicians. Rationing or priority setting is an inherent feature of decision making in health care. This applies not only to Britain but to health services around the world.1

A recent inquiry by the all party House of Commons health committee has reviewed the experience of purchasers in setting priorities and has made a series of recommendations to the government.2 In its response the government has accepted the broad thrust of the committee's report and has set out how it intends to approach rationing in future.3

Experience in different countries suggests that there are two main approaches to rationing. Firstly, there is what might be . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Rationing: the case for "muddling through elegantly"
David J Hunter
BMJ 1995 311: 811. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Lenaghan, J. (1997). The rationing debate: Central government should have a greater role in rationing decisions – The case for. BMJ 314: 967-967 [Full text]  
  • Bowling, A. (1996). Health care rationing: the public's debate. BMJ 312: 670-674 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Coiera, E. (1996). The Internet's challenge to health care provision. BMJ 312: 3-4 [Full text]  
  • Hunter, D. J (1995). Rationing: the case for "muddling through elegantly". BMJ 311: 811-811 [Full text]  
Access all current jobs at BMJ Group
Whats new online at Student BMJ
Listen to the latest BMJ Interview