Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles
AbstractHealth care resource allocation is a central moral issue in health policy, and opinions about it have been studied extensively. Allocation situations have typically been described and presented in a positive manner (i.e., who should receive medical aid). On the other hand, the negative valence allocation situation (i.e., who should not receive medical aid) has been relatively neglected. This paper demonstrates how positive versus negative framing of the exact same health care resource allocation situation can affect the perceived fairness of allocation principles. Participants usually perceived non-egalitarian principles (i.e., need, equity and tenure) to be fairer in positively framed situations (i.e., to deliver health care resources to certain patients) than negatively framed situation (i.e., not to deliver health care resources to other patients). However, framing did not affect the perceived fairness of the equality principle (i.e., a random draw). The paper offers a theoretical explanation for the effect of framing on the perceived fairness of health care resource allocation and discusses implications for both researchers and policy makers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.
Volume (Year): 5 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
Contact details of provider:
attribute framing; health care resource allocation; perceived fairness.;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148.
- Elster, Jon, 1989. "Social Norms and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 99-117, Fall.
- Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1049-1055, April.
- Xavier Cuadras-Morató & José-Luis Pinto-Prades & José-Mar�a Abellán-Perpi�án, 2001. "Equity considerations in health care: the relevance of claims," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 187-205.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometrica, Econometric Society,
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. " How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(3), pages 374-78, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.