IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/opn/wpaper/14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Anand

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University)

  • Allan Wailoo

Abstract

This paper challenges the QALY maximizing approach to rationing health care on the grounds of the consequentialist (and sometimes approximately utilitarian) moral framework on which it is based. An alternative methodological approach is suggested and, in addition to consequences, four normative determinants of health care entitlements are identified: rights, public opinion, social contracts and community values. Survey evidence is presented which shows support for these alternative frameworks and a rejection of consequentialism. The paper suggests that a (if not the) major challenge facing the designers of rationing guidelines is that of pluralism, i.e. the need to integrate considerations from a set of frameworks.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Anand & Allan Wailoo, 2000. "Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing," Open Discussion Papers in Economics 14, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:opn:wpaper:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 739-752, May.
    2. Anand, Paul, 2003. "The integration of claims to health-care: a programming approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 731-745, September.
    3. Daniel Eisenberg & Gary Freed & Matthew Davis & Dianne Singer & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Valuing health at different ages," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 149-156, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2003. "Are Some Lives More Valuable?," Working Papers in Economics 96, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Anand, Paul & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 268-284, April.
    8. Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul, 2007. "Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2499-2503, June.
    9. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    10. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281.
    11. Coast, Joanna & Smith, Richard D. & Lorgelly, Paula, 2008. "Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1190-1198, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    14. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
    15. Sophie Harnay & Elisabeth Tovar, 2017. "Obeying vs. resisting unfair laws. A structural analysis of the internalization of collective preferences on redistribution using classification trees and random forests," EconomiX Working Papers 2017-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    16. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.
    17. Bert Wee & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "Using value of statistical life for the ex ante evaluation of transport policy options: a discussion based on ethical theory," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 295-314, February.
    18. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.

    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:opn:wpaper:14. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: IT team member (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deopeuk.html .

    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.