ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the method of priority setting in the context of scarce health care resources, specifically: life-saving critical care, hospital beds, antiviral drugs, and vaccines. The method not only depends upon the nature of the resource and the disease being considered but also depends significantly upon how close the resource is to the event of death. With resources used close to the event of death, such as critical care, LIVES implies a higher priority to those with a higher chance of survival, that is, lower priority to older patients with frailty and comorbidities. However, in the rationing of hospital beds, antiviral drugs, and vaccines, LIVES gives a higher priority to older individuals. In all types of resources, the first priority is generally given to frontline health care professionals, then individuals at an increased risk for severe conditions, then essential workers. When defining an essential worker, it is important to take a restrictive approach, in order to prevent the rent-seeking activities of highly organized groups. Overarchingly, the closer a resource is to the event of death, the more restrictive the priority group must be. The chapter suggests that when holding unvaccinated individuals responsible, the financial penalty view is the least controversial.
