Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42334614›Full record

ArticleInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Distributive justice in healthcare during times of change: a medical ethics perspective].

Urban Wiesing

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Urban WiesingInstitut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin Tübingen, Gartenstraße 47, 72074, Tübingen, Deutschland. urban.wiesing@uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examines existing funding structures and options for cost savings in the healthcare sector from the perspective of fairness. Funding via wage-related contributions with an income ceiling is criticised since other forms of income are not taken into account and the wealthy are relatively spared. The separation of statutory and private health insurance creates inequalities. Three options for savings are examined: avoiding unnecessary measures, increasing the efficiency of effective services, and prioritisation based on need, benefit, and cost. The advantages of the first two options over prioritisation are outlined, as are the respective responsibilities.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEthics, MedicalNational Health ProgramsSocial JusticeCost SavingsGermanyHumansHealthcare provision/efficiencyHealthcare provision/prioritizationPrivate health insuranceStatutory health insuranceUnnecessary measuresWaste

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.