Literature DB >> 33367979

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis.

Joakim Färdow1,2, Linus Broström3, Mats Johansson3.   

Abstract

Allocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health care needs; Prioritization; Publicly funded health care; Uncorrected refractive error; Visual impairment

Year:  2020        PMID: 33367979      PMCID: PMC7870629          DOI: 10.1007/s10728-020-00423-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Care Anal        ISSN: 1065-3058


  17 in total

1.  Vision and quality-of-life.

Authors:  G C Brown
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  1999

2.  Sight test and glasses could dramatically improve the lives of 150 million people with poor vision.

Authors: 
Journal:  Indian J Med Sci       Date:  2006-11

3.  Stigma, status, and population health.

Authors:  Jo C Phelan; Jeffrey W Lucas; Cecilia L Ridgeway; Catherine J Taylor
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  The meaning of severity - do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?

Authors:  Mari Broqvist; Lars Sandman; Peter Garpenby; Barbro Krevers
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2018-04-22       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 5.  Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010.

Authors:  Donatella Pascolini; Silvio Paolo Mariotti
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Health care need: three interpretations.

Authors:  Andreas Hasman; Tony Hope; Lars Peter Osterdal
Journal:  J Appl Philos       Date:  2006

7.  Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine-item short-form Rasch-scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire.

Authors:  Mats Lundström; Konrad Pesudovs
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Co-payments in the NHS: an analysis of the normative arguments.

Authors:  Albert Weale; Sarah Clark
Journal:  Health Econ Policy Law       Date:  2009-09-01

9.  Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda.

Authors:  Mathias Barra; Mari Broqvist; Erik Gustavsson; Martin Henriksson; Niklas Juth; Lars Sandman; Carl Tollef Solberg
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2020-03

10.  Hearing loss grades and the International classification of functioning, disability and health.

Authors:  Bolajoko O Olusanya; Adrian C Davis; Howard J Hoffman
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 9.408

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.