Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions
This article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while p...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Health Economics, Policy and Law |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133125000027/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849318405205655552 |
|---|---|
| author | John Kinuthia |
| author_facet | John Kinuthia |
| author_sort | John Kinuthia |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while procedural fairness and the proposed framework are an important step in improving equity in health sector financing, the report falls short on several aspects of achieving the set objectives. First, the report does not place emphasis on the role of civic education as an important component of public education building on access to information. Therefore, there should be caution in assuming that improved dissemination of information will lead to increased civic action. Secondly, the author proposes that the report include principles that should guide how decisions are made in public deliberations when consensus cannot be achieved. Lastly, the framework in the report does not speak to the complexity of the trade-offs that have to be made between health and other sectors. The author argues that a key area of deliberations in health financing is understanding how practitioners in the sector can argue for better funding against other competing sector such as education and agriculture while still finding complementarities. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a09bea37d2d644eeadc85e7bc33e601a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1744-1331 1744-134X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Economics, Policy and Law |
| spelling | doaj-art-a09bea37d2d644eeadc85e7bc33e601a2025-08-20T03:50:49ZengCambridge University PressHealth Economics, Policy and Law1744-13311744-134X2025-01-0120131810.1017/S1744133125000027Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisionsJohn Kinuthia0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7018-1693Bajeti Hub, Nairobi, KenyaThis article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while procedural fairness and the proposed framework are an important step in improving equity in health sector financing, the report falls short on several aspects of achieving the set objectives. First, the report does not place emphasis on the role of civic education as an important component of public education building on access to information. Therefore, there should be caution in assuming that improved dissemination of information will lead to increased civic action. Secondly, the author proposes that the report include principles that should guide how decisions are made in public deliberations when consensus cannot be achieved. Lastly, the framework in the report does not speak to the complexity of the trade-offs that have to be made between health and other sectors. The author argues that a key area of deliberations in health financing is understanding how practitioners in the sector can argue for better funding against other competing sector such as education and agriculture while still finding complementarities.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133125000027/type/journal_articlefairnesspublic deliberationspublic financehealth financingbudget transparency |
| spellingShingle | John Kinuthia Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions Health Economics, Policy and Law fairness public deliberations public finance health financing budget transparency |
| title | Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| title_full | Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| title_fullStr | Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| title_short | Enhancing procedural fairness: a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| title_sort | enhancing procedural fairness a critique of the open and inclusive approach to health financing decisions |
| topic | fairness public deliberations public finance health financing budget transparency |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133125000027/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johnkinuthia enhancingproceduralfairnessacritiqueoftheopenandinclusiveapproachtohealthfinancingdecisions |