Exceptionality in the context of individual funding requests

Abstract

The National Health Service operates under significant resource constraints, both financially and in terms of staffing, leading to challenges in providing comprehensive healthcare for all. This poses a problem for commissioners: how do we prioritise treatment allocation? Chris Newdick’s influential work in ethics and law has shaped discourse in this area for over three decades. However, we critique a specific aspect of Newdick’s work concerning individual funding requests (IFRs) within the healthcare resource allocation system.
The allocation problem involves balancing population-wide healthcare needs with the ethical imperative to treat individuals. Decision-making frameworks like the ‘Accountability for Reasonableness’ (A4R) framework aim to address this by fostering fair processes. In the United Kingdom, local priority forums, guided by ethical frameworks, play a crucial role in resource allocation decisions. While these processes strive to be fair, they are not flawless. These processes cannot consider every potential patient perspective, circumstance or reason for needing treatment. To address this, A4R frameworks include mechanisms for revision and appeals. IFRs form an important part of this picture by providing a recourse for patients whose cases may not have been adequately considered because they are in some sense unusual or ‘exceptional’.
However, current processes often rely on a problematic interpretation of ‘exceptionality’ which fails to align with A4R principles. This interpretation sometimes excludes those who ought to be included, and includes those who ought to be excluded. We argue for a revised understanding of exceptionality to ensure fairness and effectiveness in resource allocation processes informed by Newdick’s work.