Many jurisdictions have processes to consider Individual Funding Requests but, with few exceptions, the decisions made with respect to these are not made public. Drawing upon Daniels and Sabin's account of the requirements of procedural justice, Accountability for Reasonableness, this paper considers several arguments for and against publishing individual funding request decisions. After briefly reviewing the case for publicity as a requirement of procedural justice and canvassing several arguments against publicity, we consider whether patient confidentiality justifies suppressing funding decisions. We claim that, with one possible exception, publication of individual funding request decisions does not raise concerns that are different in kind from those that apply to publication of legal judgments relating to healthcare, and that the protections instituted in that setting should be sufficient to allow publication of funding decisions. The discussion concludes with several cautionary notes.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Process and consensus: ethical decision-making in the infertility clinic—a qualitative study
- Exceptionally difficult
- How New Zealand has contained expenditure on drugs
- Quality improvement perspective and healthcare funding decisions
- Justice and procedure: how does “accountability for reasonableness” result in fair limit-setting decisions?
- Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the Child B case
- Ethics and opportunity costs: have NICE grasped the ethics of priority setting?
- Family history and adoption in the UK: conflicts of interest in medical disclosure
- How do Iranian emergency doctors decide? Clinical decision making processes in practice
- Inconsistencies in fertility preservation for young people with cancer in the UK