IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i2p108-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Ubel
  • George Loewenstein
  • Dennis Scanlon
  • Mark Kamlet

Abstract

Objective . To test whether cost-effectiveness analysis and present methods of elic iting health condition "utilities" capture the public's values for health care rationing. Design. Two surveys of economics students. The first survey measured their utilities for three states of health, using either analog scale, standard gamble, or time tradeoff. The second survey measured their preferences, in paired rationing choices of the health states from the first survey and also compared with treatment of acutely fatal appendicitis. The rationing choices each subject faced were individualized according to his or her utility responses, so that the subject should have been indifferent between the two conditions in each rationing choice. Results. The analog-scale elicitation method produced significantly lower utilities than the time-tradeoff and standard-gam ble methods for two of the three conditions (p

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:108-116
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bostic, Raphael & Herrnstein, R. J. & Luce, R. Duncan, 1990. "The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 193-212, March.
    2. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    2. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Ivan Williams & Linda Levy & C.D. Naylor, 1996. "Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 262-272, August.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    4. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Enrico Diecidue & Olivier l’Haridon, 2017. "Patience and time consistency in collective decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 181-208, March.
    5. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Hilda Kammoun, 2013. "Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 411-429, March.
    7. Robert J. Brent, 2012. "The Effects Of Hiv Medications On The Quality Of Life Of Older Adults In New York City," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 967-976, August.
    8. Cho, Young-Hee & Duncan Luce, R. & Truong, Lan, 2002. "Duplex decomposition and general segregation of lotteries of a gain and a loss: An empirical evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1176-1193, November.
    9. Heather J. Sutherland & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & Norman F. Boyd & James E. Till, 1982. "Attitudes Toward Quality of Survival," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(3), pages 299-309, August.
    10. Peep F.M. Stalmeier & Thom G.G. Bezembinder, 1999. "The Discrepancy between Risky and Riskless Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 435-447, October.
    11. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    13. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    14. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    15. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    16. Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.
    17. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Pain and Suffering Awards: They Shouldn't Be (Just) about Pain and Suffering," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 195-216, June.
    18. Alarie, Yves & Dionne, Georges, 2004. "Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches: R. Duncan Luce, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1999, 331 pp., Author Index, Subject Index, US$ 59.95, I," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 133-136, May.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    20. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex, 1995. "Time preference, duration and health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 289-299, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:108-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.