What is the point of mentioning waiting lists, postcode and campaigns?
Health systems with finite budgets cannot fund every treatment, and the choices are painful. One method is to compare treatments by the health gained per pound spent, funding those that offer the most and declining those that offer least. Critics say that this places a price on life and unfairly disadvantages older people and those with disabilities, who may gain fewer years of benefit. The criticism has force, but the alternative is not the absence of rationing. It is rationing by waiting lists, by postcode or by the loudness of campaigns. A transparent method that can be challenged and revised is preferable to hidden ones that cannot. The sensible response to the critics' concerns is to refine the method, for example by giving extra weight to the severity of illness.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. To show that rationing continues to exist even where no formal method is used
- Step 1: The alternative to a formal method is described as rationing by other means.
- Step 2: These examples are such means.
Answer
To show that rationing continues to exist even where no formal method is used.
Why not the others: The examples are not endorsed, accused, universal or aimed at critics' ignorance.
Practise more Health policy.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.