Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing
AbstractThis 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.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics in its series Open Discussion Papers in Economics with number 14.
Date of creation: Jan 2000
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(268), pages 543-77, November
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Web page: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/about-the-faculty/departments/economics/research/discussion-papers.php
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Anand, Paul & Wailoo, Allan, 2000. "Utilities versus Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health Care Rationing," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(268), pages 543-77, November.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- 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.
- Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
- Amartya Sen, 2002. "Why health equity?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 659-666.
- Paul Anand, 2002.
"The Integration of Claims to Health-Care: a Programming Approach,"
Open Discussion Papers in Economics
45, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2003. "Are Some Lives More Valuable?," Working Papers in Economics 96, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (IT team member).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.