Voorhoeve, AlexEdejer, Tessa T.T.Kapiriri, LydiaNorheim, Ole F.Snowden, JamesBasenya, OlivierBayarsaikhan, DorjsurenChentaf, IkramEyal, NirFolsom, AmandaTun Hussein, Rozita HalinaMorales, CristianOstmann, FlorianOttersen, TrygvePrakongsai, PhusitSaenz, CarlaSaleh, KarimaSommanustweechai, AngkanaWikler, DanielZakariah, Afisah2017-06-152016Voorhoeve, A., T. T. Edejer, L. Kapiriri, O. F. Norheim, J. Snowden, O. Basenya, D. Bayarsaikhan, et al. 2016. “Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage.” Health and Human Rights 18 (2): 11-22.http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33029954Abstract The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.en-USJournal Article2017-06-15