IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v14y2005i7p669-678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Mira Johri
  • Laura J. Damschroder
  • Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher
  • Peter A. Ubel

Abstract

Background: Recent proposals to reform cost–effectiveness analysis (CEA) by weighting health benefits [(Quality‐adjusted life‐years) QALYs] by recipients' age are based on studies examining age‐related preferences in life‐saving contexts. We investigated whether the perceived importance of age in resource allocation decisions differs among intervention‐types. Methods: 160 individuals were recruited from a cafeteria of a university medical centre and asked to choose between hypothetical health care programmes. Scenario A described two programmes treating life‐threatening conditions and Scenario B two programmes providing palliative care. Programmes were identical except in average patient age (35 versus 65). Respondents also directly rated the importance of age for allocating resources for six types of interventions. Results: Responses for the life‐saving scenario favoured younger age groups while those for the palliative care scenario showed no age preference. The difference between scenarios was statistically significant. When directly rating the importance of age in allocating treatment resources, people placed greatest importance on age in treating infertility and life‐saving, and least importance in treating depression. Discussion: The importance people place on age as a resource allocation criterion depends on the clinical context. As QALYs serve as a common measure of health benefits for all intervention types, age weighting of QALYs is premature. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:7:p:669-678
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.958
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.958?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. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & Hessing, Dick J. & De Charro, Frank Th., 1993. "The utility of health at different stages in life: A quantitative approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 153-158, July.
    2. Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & José Luis Pinto, 1999. "The social value of health programs: Is age a relevant factor?," Working Papers 9904, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    3. Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul & Shaw, Rebecca, 2003. "Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 687-696, August.
    4. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov, 1997. "Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 589-599, October.
    5. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    6. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132, March.
    7. Charny, M.C. & Lewis, P.A. & Farrow, S.C., 1989. "Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 1331-1338, January.
    8. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518, September.
    9. Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
    10. Tsuchiya, Aki, 1999. "Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 267-276, January.
    11. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    12. Cropper, Maureen L & Aydede, Sema K & Portney, Paul R, 1994. "Preferences for Life Saving Programs: How the Public Discounts Time and Age," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 243-265, May.
    13. Donaldson, Cam & Atkinson, Ann & Bond, John & Wright, Ken, 1988. "Should QALYs be programme-specific?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 239-257, September.
    14. David Meltzer, 1997. "Accounting for Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Working Papers 5946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Eva Rodríguez & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 611-621, October.
    16. Magnus Johannesson & David Meltzer & Richard M. O'Conor, 1997. "Incorporating Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(4), pages 382-389, October.
    17. 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, March.
    18. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    2. Gill, Betty & Griffin, Barbara & Hesketh, Beryl, 2013. "Changing expectations concerning life-extending treatment: The relevance of opportunity cost," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 66-73.
    3. Benning, Tim M. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C., 2013. "Paying more for faster care? Individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 119-128.
    4. JoNell Strough & Eric R. Stone & Andrew M. Parker & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2022. "Perceived Social Norms Guide Health Care Decisions for Oneself and Others: A Cross-Sectional Experiment in a US Online Panel," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 326-340, April.
    5. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.
    6. Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Minhaj Mahmud & Peter Martinsson, 2011. "Saving lives versus life‐years in rural Bangladesh: an ethical preferences approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 723-736, June.
    7. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.

    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. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    2. Adele Diederich & Jeannette Winkelhage & Norman Wirsik, 2011. "Age as a Criterion for Setting Priorities in Health Care? A Survey of the German Public View," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    4. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    5. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2007. "Economic evaluation of services for a National Health Scheme: The case for a fairness-based framework," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 785-799, July.
    6. Aki Tsuchiya & Richard Edlin & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Measuring the societal value of lifetime health," Working Papers 2009010, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised May 2009.
    7. Eva Rodríguez & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 611-621, October.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Karen Huang & Regan M. Bernhard & Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman & Joshua D. Greene, 2021. "Veil-of-ignorance reasoning mitigates self-serving bias in resource allocation during the COVID-19 crisis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    11. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1836-1843.
    12. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    13. John McKie & Bradley Shrimpton & Jeff Richardson & Rosalind Hurworth, 2011. "The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 945-957, August.
    14. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Phelps, Charles E., 2020. "Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    15. Carl Lyttkens, 2003. "Time to disable DALYs?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 195-202, September.
    16. Aki Tsuchiya, 2000. "QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 57-68, January.
    17. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    18. Bengt Liljas & Göran S. Karlsson & Nils‐Olov Stålhammar, 2008. "On future non‐medical costs in economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 579-591, May.
    19. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    20. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    21. Jaldell Henrik, 2013. "Cost-benefit analyses of sprinklers in nursing homes for elderly," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 209-235, August.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:7:p:669-678. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.