• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.53-68
• /
• 2010

In health care, the process of resource allocation becomes a controversial process of rationing, as scarce resources are allocated between the numerous health care interventions. Especially for the last few years, decisions to define and expand the benefit package of National Health Insurance have always become the object of fierce criticism. It is partly because we have not reached a collective agreement as to what the most important criteria for spending priorities are. This paper considers the procedures and the principles which could be used to determine rationing in health care, and emphasizes the need to have explicit principles which determine patient access to care and to have an evidence base to inform rationing decisions. Also, the need to set up a public committee is suggested to take rationing decisions on behalf of government and NHS and to present them as evidence-based decisions.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.336-346
• /
• 2017

Background: Due to the asymmetry of information and knowledge and the power of bureaucrats and medical professionals, it is not easy for citizens to participate in health care policy making. This study analyzes the case of the insured organization participating in the Health Insurance Policy Committee (HIPC) and provides a basis for discussing methods and conditions for better public participation. Methods: Qualitative analysis was conducted using the in-depth interviews with the participants and document data such as materials for HIPC meetings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled six participants from organizations representing the insured in HIPC. The meanings related to the factors affecting participation were found and categorized into major categories. Results: The main factors affecting participating in the decision making process were trust and cooperation among the participants, structure and procedure of governance, representation and expertise of participants, and contents of issues. Due to limited cooperation, participants lacked influence in important decisions. There was an imbalance in power due to unreasonable procedures and criteria for governance. As the materials for meetings were provided inappropriate manner, it was difficult for participants to understand the contents and comments on the meeting. Due to weak accountability structure, opinions from external stakeholders have not been well received. The participation was made depending on the expertise of individual members. The degree of influence was different depending on the contents of the issues. Conclusion: In order to meet the values of democracy and realize the participation that the insured can demonstrate influence, it is necessary to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a sufficient learning environment. More deliberative structure which reflects citizen's public perspective is required, rather than current negotiating structure of HIPC.