IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i4p491-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Fair Test of the Fair Innings?

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Oliver

    (London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, a.j.oliver@lse.ac.uk)

Abstract

Priority setting in health care under conventional rules of health economic evaluation is based upon the ethos of attempting to maximize post-treatment health gain given available health care resources. In his later years, Alan Williams advocated the ``fair innings argument,'' which balances differences in whole lifetime experiences of health with differences in post-treatment outcomes when prioritizing people for health care. This article reports a study that presented respondents with a number of abstract health care decision contexts in an attempt to test the extent to which post-treatment health maximization, the fair innings argument, or, indeed other ``decision rules,'' are evident in the respondents' answers. The results indicate that the most commonly observed decision rule differs substantially across health care contexts, and therefore imply that rather than pursue an overarching decision rule, it may be more appropriate to vary the rule according to the particular health care decision context under consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Oliver, 2009. "A Fair Test of the Fair Innings?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 491-499, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:4:p:491-499
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09336076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09336076
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09336076?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. 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.
    2. Magnus Johannesson, 2001. "Should we aggregate relative or absolute changes in QALYs?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 573-577, October.
    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. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    2. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).

    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. Adam Oliver, 2004. "Prioritizing Health Care: Is “Health†Always an Appropriate Maximand?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 272-280, June.
    2. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    3. Bleichrodt, Han & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2002. "A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 397-403, May.
    4. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    5. Michael Drummond, 2012. "Economic Evaluation and Decision-makers," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Stolk, Elly A. & Pickee, Stefan J. & Ament, Andre H.J.A. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2005. "Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 343-355, November.
    7. Oliver, Adam, 2004. "Prioritizing health care: is “health” always an appropriate maximand?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 157, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2006. "Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 312-319, May.
    10. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    11. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Arnesen, Trude & Kapiriri, Lydia, 2004. "Can the value choices in DALYs influence global priority-setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 137-149, November.
    14. Rogowski, Wolf H. & Schleidgen, Sebastian, 2015. "Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 147-155.
    15. 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.
    16. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    17. Dolan, Paul & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2001. "Equity in health: the importance of different health streams," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 823-834, September.
    18. Nord, Erik, 2005. "Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 257-263, January.
    19. Louise B. Russell, 2004. "Is Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Unfair?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 232-234, March.
    20. 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.

    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:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:4:p:491-499. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.