Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage. Academic Article uri icon

  • Overview
  • Research
  • Additional Document Info
  • View All


  • The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.


  • Voorhoeve, Alex
  • Edejer, Tessa TT
  • Kapiriri, Lydia
  • Norheim, Ole F
  • Snowden, James
  • Basenya, Olivier
  • Bayarsaikhan, Dorjsuren
  • Chentaf, Ikram
  • Eyal, Nir
  • Folsom, Amanda
  • Tun Hussein, Rozita Halina
  • Morales, Cristian
  • Ostmann, Florian
  • Ottersen, Trygve
  • Prakongsai, Phusit
  • Saenz, Carla
  • Saleh, Karima
  • Sommanustweechai, Angkana
  • Wikler, Daniel
  • Zakariah, Afisah

publication date

  • December 2016