Both developing and developed countries face an increasing mismatch between what patients expect to receive from healthcare and what the public healthcare systems can afford to provide. Where there has been a growing recognition of the entitlement to receive healthcare, the frustrated expectations with regards to the level of provision has led to lawsuits challenging the denial of funding for health treatments by public health systems.
This book analyses the impact of courts and litigation on the way health systems set priorities and make rationing decisions. In particular, it focuses on how the judicial protection of the right to healthcare can impact the institutionalization, functioning and centrality of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for decisions about the funding of treatment. Based on the case study of three jurisdictions Brazil, Colombia, and England it shows that courts can be a key driver for the institutionalization of HTA. These case studies show the paradoxes of judicial control, which can promote accountability and impair it, demand administrative competence and undermine bureaucratic capacities. The case studies offer a nuanced and evidence-informed understanding of these paradoxes in the context of health care by showing how the judicial control of priority-setting decisions in health care can be used to require and control an explicit scheme for health technology assessment, but can also limit and circumvent it.
It will be essential for those researching Medical Law and Healthcare Policy, Human Rights Law, and Social Rights.
This book analyses the impact of courts and litigation on the way health systems set priorities and make rationing decisions. It focuses on how the judicial protection of the right to healthcare can impact the institutionalization, functioning and centrality of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for decisions about the funding of treatment.
1 Introduction
2 Priority-Setting and the Right to Healthcare: Synergies and Tensions on the
Path to Universal Health Coverage
3 Priority-Setting and Health Technology Assessment
4 Brazil Right to Healthcare Litigation: The Problem and the Institutional
Responses
5 Colombia Demanding But Undermining Fair Priority-Setting Via Courts
6 England From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for
Reasonableness
7 Conclusion Institutionalizing, Controlling, Limiting and Circumventing
HTA Via Courts
Daniel Wei Liang Wang is Associate Professor at Fundaēćo Getślio Vargas (FGV) School of Law. Before joining FGV, he was a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Health and Human Rights at Queen Mary University of London and a Law Fellow at the London School of Economics, where he taught Human Rights Law. Daniel holds a PhD in Law (LSE), an MSc in Philosophy and Public Policies (LSE), a Master in Law (University of Sćo Paulo), a BA in Social Sciences (University of Sćo Paulo) and a BA in Law (University of Sćo Paulo). He was a member of the National Health Service (NHS) Central London Research Ethics Committee (2017-2019).