This book analyses the impact of courts and litigation on the way health systems set priorities and make rationing decisions. It focuses on how the judicial protection of the right to healthcare can impact the institutionalization, functioning and centrality of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for decisions about the funding of treatment. "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.