Priority setting in public and private health care. A guide through the ideological jungle

Priority setting means deciding who is to get what at whose expense. In the context of health care, the 'what' is that statement refers to different sorts of health care, and the 'who' to different sorts of people. The 'whose expense' is not so straightforward. It appears to refer to 'who will pay the bill', and in a public health care system this might seem to be the government, though behind the government stands the taxpayer, and that means all of us. Even in a private health care system it is rarely the patient who meets the bill directly, for some or all of it will be met by an insurer, and the costs of any particular treatment episode will be spread over many premium-payers. But in the context of an economic, rather than a financial, analysis the phrase 'at whose expense' has to be interpreted in a different way, based on the notion of opportunity cost, rather than on the notion of expenditure. When so reinterpreted, it means 'who is to go without' health care in order that other shall have it. Giving priority to one group of people means taking it away from another group, though for obvious reasons politicians tend not to dwell on this implication, leaving us to infer, from what is not said, who the 'low priority' groups are. In any honest and open discussion of these issues, however, that implication must be faced squarely, and we must not shrink from identifying who (implicitly) the 'low priority' people are, in any particular system of health care.