Health Technology Assessment, Courts and the Right to Healthcare

Daniel Wei Liang Wang is Associate Professor at Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) School of Law. Before joining FGV, he was a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Health and Human Rights at Queen Mary University of London and a Law Fellow at the London School of Economics, where he taught Human Rights Law. Daniel holds a PhD in Law (LSE), an MSc in Philosophy and Public Policies (LSE), a Master in Law (University of São Paulo), a BA in Social Sciences (University of São Paulo) and a BA in Law (University of São Paulo). He was a member of the National Health Service (NHS) Central London Research Ethics Committee (2017-2019).

• 1 Introduction 2 Priority-Setting and the Right to Healthcare: Synergies and Tensions on the Path to Universal Health Coverage 3 Priority-Setting and Health Technology Assessment4 Brazil – Right to Healthcare Litigation: The Problem and the Institutional Responses 5 Colombia – Demanding But Undermining Fair Priority-Setting Via Courts 6 England – From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for Reasonableness 7 Conclusion – Institutionalizing, Controlling, Limiting and Circumventing HTA Via Courts

"This work offers a rare perspective of the interplay between the judiciary on one hand and institutions responsible for making decisions about healthcare investments, on the other. Studying real examples of priority setting institutions and of court rulings from Latin America and the UK, it offers valuable lessons for policy makers, legal experts and human rights advocates, demonstrating rather clearly that all decisions carry trade-offs and that in the strive to realise health as a human right, good intentions alone may result into perverse outcomes for the poorest and sickest amongst us."Kalipso Chalkidou, Professor of Public Health at Imperial College London and founder of NICE International."A challenging dissection of the impact of courts on health care decision-making. Learned, well-researched and written in a clear style, this book’s close scrutiny of three jurisdictions leads it to ask some very hard questions about whether judges – even well-meaning ones – might not be doing more harm than good in this vital arena".Conor Gearty, Professor of Human Rights Law in the LSE Law Department.