The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions
Substantial debate on the appropriate foundations of economic evaluation in health-care has been conducted between welfarists and non-welfarists in the health economics literature. This has focussed on defining and measuring appropriate outcomes. However, there has been little discussion of the importance of procedures. This paper examines six dimensions of procedure in relation to health-care rationing which are drawn from existing literature and previous empirical investigation. A survey of the general public was used to test for preferences for each dimension of procedure. Results show that for each dimension the importance differed according to the level of decision-making (we tested decision-making at the level of the individual doctor, health authority and government). We identified three distinct clusters of respondents who can be broadly described as "proceduralists" (47%), "pluralists" (15%) and "anti-consequentialists" (38%). The paper concludes that consequentialism is insufficient to provide the conceptual framework that public decision-making in health requires, although this does not mean that consequences are unimportant.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 60 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:2:p:223-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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.