Florian Ostmann

We consider a case where consumers are faced with a choice between sweatshop-produced clothing and identical clothing produced in high-income countries. We argue that it is morally better for consumers to purchase clothing produced in sweatshops and then to compensate sweatshop workers for the difference between their actual wage and a fair wage than it is for them either to purchase the sweatshop clothing without this compensatory transfer or to purchase clothing produced in high-income countries.

Recent evidence confirming that the administration of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to HIV-infected persons may effectively reduce their risk of transmission has revived the discussion about priority setting in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The fact that the very same drugs can be used both for treatment purposes and for preventive purposes (Treatment as Prevention) has been seen as paradigm-shifting and taken to spark a new controversy: In a context of scarce resources, should the allocation of ARVs be prioritized based on the goal of providing treatment, or on the goal of preventing the spread of the HIV epidemic? Contributions to this discussion tend to assume that treatment and prevention constitute two divergent goals that entail conflicting priorities. We challenge that assumption on the basis of both conceptual and empirical examination. We argue that, as far as the provision of ARVs to HIV-infected persons is concerned, the goals of treatment and prevention do not entail conflicting priorities; to the contrary, they dictate converging strategies for the optimal allocation of ARVs. In light of the current evidence, the concept of Treatment as Prevention can indeed be seen as paradigm-shifting, yet in a novel way: Rather than extending the tension between the goals of treatment and prevention to the level of drug-allocation, it dissolves this tension by providing a rationale for a unified strategy for allocating ARVs.

Progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) requires making difficult trade-offs. In this journal, Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO Director-General, has endorsed the principles for making such decisions put forward by the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and UHC. These principles include maximizing population health, priority for the worse off, and shielding people from health-related financial risks. But how should one apply these principles in particular cases and how should one adjudicate between them when their demands conflict? This paper by some members of the Consultative Group and a diverse group of health policy professionals addresses these questions. It considers three stylized versions of actual policy dilemmas. Each of these cases pertains to one of the three principal dimensions of progress towards UHC: which services to cover first, which populations to prioritize for coverage, and how to move from out-of-pocket expenditures to pre-payment with pooling of funds. Our cases are simplified to highlight common trade-offs. While we make specific recommendations, our primary aim is to demonstrate both the form and substance of the reasoning involved in striking a fair balance between competing interests on the road to UHC.