Journal Article

Response to critics of Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage

Voorhoeve, Alex, Dale, Elina, Gopinathan, Unni

2025

Overview

In response to our critics, we clarify and defend key ideas in the report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. First, we argue that procedural fairness has greater value than Dan Hausman allows. Second, we argue that the Report aligns with John Kinuthia's view that a knowledgeable public and a capable civil society, alongside good facilitation, are important for effective public deliberation. Moreover, we agree with Kinuthia that the Report's framework for procedural fairness applies not merely within the health sector, but also to the wider budget process. Third, we argue that while Dheepa Rajan and Benjamin Rouffy-Ly are right that robust processes for equal participation are often central to a fair process, sometimes improvements in other aspects of procedural fairness, such as transparency, can take priority over strengthening participation. Fourth, while we welcome Sara Bennett and Maria Merritt's fascinating use of the Report's principles of procedural fairness to assess the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, we argue that their application of the Report's principle of equality to development partners' decision-making requires further justification.

• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Subject: accountability / Acquired immune deficiency syndrome / AIDS / Civil society / Critics / Decision making / Distributive justice / Equality / Equity / Fairness / Financing / Health / Health care expenditures / Health economics / health financing / Healthcare Financing / HIV / Human immunodeficiency virus / Humans / Justification / Legitimacy / National health insurance / Participation / procedural fairness / Procedural justice / Response / Transparency / United States / Universal Health Insurance - economics / Values