 Perhaps the most extensive discussion about legitimate decision-procedures as an appropriate response to normative disagreement concerns disagreements about priority-setting. To give a sense of these debates and the broader philosophical issues they raise, it is worth focusing on an especially influential framework for assessing the legitimacy of decision-making about priority setting and coverage issues relevant to public health, Norman Daniels’s and James Sabin’s Accountability for Reasonableness  (A4R).[27]  Initially intended to inform decision-making by private insurance companies, A4R has since been extended to apply to priority setting generally and health technology assessment.