This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (64)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Norman Daniels, PhD

JAMA. 1991;265(17):2232-2235.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE OREGON Basic Health Services Act mandates universal access to basic care, but includes rationing services to those individuals who are Medicaid recipients. If no new resources are added, the plan may make current Medicaid recipients worse off, but still reduce inequality between the poor and the rest of society. If resources are expanded and benefits given appropriate rankings, no one may be worse off; though inequality will be reduced, alternative reforms might reduce it even further. Whether the outcome seems fair then depends on how much priority to the well-being of the poor we believe justice requires; it also depends on political judgments about the feasibility of alternative strategies for achieving more egalitarian reforms. Oregon makes rationing public and explicit, as justice requires, but it is not clear how community values influence the ranking of services; ultimately, the rationing process is fair only if we may rely on the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Footnotes
This article is the third in a new column. The reader is referred to the May 15,1991, issue, which will be dedicated to caring for the uninsured and underinsured.

Reprint requests to Department of Philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155 (Dr Daniels).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?