IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i7p773-781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of public values in setting health care priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Hadorn, David C.

Abstract

Public values must play a substantial role in any attempt to deal with the health care resource allocation problem. This article examines how preferences for the health outcomes of care (e.g. improved or worsened physical suffering) can provide a coherent basis upon which set explicit health care priorities. Preferences for health outcomes could be mapped onto information concerning the outcomes expected from the specific health services when used for particular clinical conditions. These 'preference-weighted' outcomes would determine the relative priority given to health services for each specific condition. Generic outcome measures would be used in order to permit comparison of benefits and harms across different services. It is argued herein that allocation rules cannot be based on individual patients' preferences. Instead, average population preferences should be used to evaluate the relative importance of services--as occurs in other insurance contexts--despite theoretical concerns about the aggregation of preferences. Patients' preferences might also be estimated by reference to relevant demographic factors, but only if population subgroups are identified with relatively homogeneous preference patterns and if the use of such subgroups is deemed socially acceptable. Concerns about stereotyping and discrimination might limit the tractability of this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Hadorn, David C., 1991. "The role of public values in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 773-781, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:7:p:773-781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90303-T
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 1996. "Public Perceptions of the Importance of Prognosis in Allocating Transplantable Livers to Children," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 234-241, August.
    2. Peter C. Smith & Andrew Street, 2012. "Concepts and Challenges in Measuring the Performance of Health Care Organizations," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Erik Nord, 1994. "The qaly—a measure of social value rather than individual utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 89-93, March.
    4. World Bank, 2015. "Bulgaria Health Financing," World Bank Publications - Reports 22964, The World Bank Group.
    5. 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.
    6. Menon, Devidas & Stafinski, Tania & Martin, Douglas, 2007. "Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 220-233, December.
    7. Albert Weale, 2010. "Political Theory and Practical Public Reasoning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 266-281, March.
    8. Sandoval, Guillermo A. & Barnsley, Jan & Berta, Whitney & Murray, Michael & Brown, Adalsteinn D., 2007. "Sustained public preferences on hospital performance across Canadian provinces," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 246-256, October.
    9. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    10. Hagihara, Akihito & Murakami, Masayoshi & Miller, Alan S. & Nobutomo, Koichi, 1997. "Association between attitudes toward health promotion and opinions regarding organ transplants in Japan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 157-170, November.
    11. Brousselle, Astrid & Lessard, Chantale, 2011. "Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 832-839, March.
    12. Caroline M. Vass & Katherine Payne, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 859-866, September.
    13. Doherty, Jane E. & Rispel, Laetitia C., 1995. "From conflict to cohesion: Involving stakeholders in policy research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 409-415.
    14. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    15. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    16. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    17. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1995. "The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 145-151, November.
    18. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    19. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2005. "Empiricism, ethics and orthodox economic theory: what is the appropriate basis for decision-making in the health sector?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 265-275, January.

    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:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:7:p:773-781. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.