Economics and ethics in mental health care: traditions and trade-offs

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Daniel Chisholm, Alan Stewart
{"title":"Economics and ethics in mental health care: traditions and trade-offs","authors":"Daniel Chisholm,&nbsp;Alan Stewart","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199807)1:2<55::AID-MHP11>3.0.CO;2-A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Background</b>: Both economic and ethical perspectives are exerting increasing influence at all levels of mental health policy and practice; yet there is little consensus on how these two different perspectives are to be reconciled or explicitly incorporated into decision-making.</p><p><b>Aim</b>: This review article is directed towards a fuller understanding of the complex trade-offs and compromises that are or may be made by clinicians, managers and policy-makers alike in the context of mental health care planning and delivery.</p><p><b>Method</b>: We briefly outline a number of key principles of health care economics and ethics, and then focus on the particular incentives and trade-offs that are raised by these principles at three levels of the mental health system: government and society; purchasers and providers; and users and carers.</p><p><b>Results</b>: At the level of government and society, we find (economically influenced) attempts to reform mental health care offset by concerns revolving around access to care: whether society is prepared to forgo economic benefits in exchange for improved equity depends to a considerable extent on the prevailing ethical paradigm. The implementation of these reforms at the level of purchasers and providers has helped to focus attention on evaluation and prioritization, but has also introduced ‘perverse incentives’ such as cost-shifting and cream-skimming, which can impede access to or continuity of appropriate care for mentally ill people. Finally, we detect opportunities for moral hazard and other forms of strategic behaviour that are thrown up by the nature of the carer:user relationship in mental health care.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b>: We conclude by highlighting the need to move towards a more open, accountable and evidence-based mental health care system. Acknowledgement of and progress towards these three requirements will not deliver <i>ideal</i> levels of efficiency or equity, but will foster a greater understanding of the relevance of ethical considerations to mental health policies and strategies that are often influenced strongly or solely by economic arguments, whilst also demonstrating that equity must come at a price. © 1998 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"1 2","pages":"55-62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199807)1:2<55::AID-MHP11>3.0.CO;2-A","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-176X%28199807%291%3A2%3C55%3A%3AAID-MHP11%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: Both economic and ethical perspectives are exerting increasing influence at all levels of mental health policy and practice; yet there is little consensus on how these two different perspectives are to be reconciled or explicitly incorporated into decision-making.

Aim: This review article is directed towards a fuller understanding of the complex trade-offs and compromises that are or may be made by clinicians, managers and policy-makers alike in the context of mental health care planning and delivery.

Method: We briefly outline a number of key principles of health care economics and ethics, and then focus on the particular incentives and trade-offs that are raised by these principles at three levels of the mental health system: government and society; purchasers and providers; and users and carers.

Results: At the level of government and society, we find (economically influenced) attempts to reform mental health care offset by concerns revolving around access to care: whether society is prepared to forgo economic benefits in exchange for improved equity depends to a considerable extent on the prevailing ethical paradigm. The implementation of these reforms at the level of purchasers and providers has helped to focus attention on evaluation and prioritization, but has also introduced ‘perverse incentives’ such as cost-shifting and cream-skimming, which can impede access to or continuity of appropriate care for mentally ill people. Finally, we detect opportunities for moral hazard and other forms of strategic behaviour that are thrown up by the nature of the carer:user relationship in mental health care.

Conclusion: We conclude by highlighting the need to move towards a more open, accountable and evidence-based mental health care system. Acknowledgement of and progress towards these three requirements will not deliver ideal levels of efficiency or equity, but will foster a greater understanding of the relevance of ethical considerations to mental health policies and strategies that are often influenced strongly or solely by economic arguments, whilst also demonstrating that equity must come at a price. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

心理健康护理中的经济学与伦理学:传统与权衡
背景:经济和伦理观点在心理健康政策和实践的各个层面都发挥着越来越大的影响;然而,对于如何将这两种不同的观点调和或明确纳入决策,几乎没有达成共识。目的:这篇综述文章旨在更全面地了解临床医生、管理者和决策者在心理健康护理规划和提供的背景下正在或可能做出的复杂权衡和妥协。方法:我们简要概述了医疗保健经济学和伦理学的一些关键原则,然后重点关注这些原则在心理健康系统的三个层面提出的特定激励和权衡:政府和社会;购买者和提供者;以及使用者和护理人员。结果:在政府和社会层面,我们发现(受经济影响的)改革心理健康护理的尝试被围绕获得护理的担忧所抵消:社会是否准备放弃经济利益以换取改善的公平在很大程度上取决于主流的伦理范式。在购买者和提供者层面实施这些改革有助于将注意力集中在评估和优先顺序上,但也引入了“不正当的激励措施”,如成本转移和撇奶油,这可能会阻碍精神病患者获得或连续获得适当的护理。最后,我们发现了道德风险和其他形式的战略行为的机会,这些行为是由护理者的性质引发的:心理健康护理中的用户关系。结论:最后,我们强调需要建立一个更加开放、负责和循证的精神卫生保健系统。承认这三项要求并在这方面取得进展不会带来理想的效率或公平水平,但会促进人们更好地理解道德考虑与心理健康政策和战略的相关性,这些政策和战略往往受到强烈或仅受经济论点的影响,同时也表明公平必须付出代价。©1998 John Wiley&;有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信