Background: It is widely acknowledged that the distribution of scarce health care resources should satisfy two goals: allocative efficiency and fairness. However, there exist little evidence and guidance on how efficiency could be incorporated with fairne ss. This is both a theoretical problem and a policy challenge for national and international health authorities (e.g WHO).
Theoretical framework: In the literature, three problems related to the conflict between efficiency and fairness have been identif ied: 1) The priorities problem; 2) The fair chances, best outcome problem; and 3) The aggregation problem. An ethical framework called Accountability for Reasonableness argues that procedural methods are needed to resolve priority problems. The current st udy builds onto this framework, arguing that judgments about distributions should be justified through the use of a public deliberative procedure that can generate weights to be used in distributive analysis. Empirical knowledge about distributional weigh ts is lacking and the projects aims to filling this gap.
Methods: Case studies of priority setting. Deliberative group assessment of distributive weights through the modified nominal group technique using person- and life-year trade-off techniques. Cost- effectiveness analysis with modified distributional weights
Expected results: This project seeks to achieve results in three interrelated arenas: To contribute to better tools for priority setting. To bring the research group at the University of Bergen to the forefront in this field through close collaboration with the best international researchers. To disseminate results in international peer-reviewed journals, policy briefs and public debate.