IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v21y2014i2p158-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Economic imperialism' in health care resource allocation - how can equity considerations be incorporated into economic evaluation?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Klonschinski

Abstract

That the maximization of quality-adjusted life years violates concerns for fairness is well known. One approach to face this issue is to elicit fairness preferences of the public empirically and to incorporate the corresponding equity weights into cost-utility analysis (CUA). It is thereby sought to encounter the objections by means of an axiological modification while leaving the value-maximizing framework of CUA intact. Based on the work of Lübbe (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, forthcoming), this paper questions this strategy and scrutinizes the concomitant assumptions concerning the nature of prioritization decisions. Empirical studies indicate that these premises are in fact unwarranted. People chose a certain resource allocation because they perceive it as a fair way to treat the persons concerned, not because it maximizes something valuable, and it is questionable if prioritization decision can be represented as value-maximizing choices at all. This reflection on the fundamental distinction between deontological and consequentialist reasoning bears general implications for the scope of 'economic imperialism.'

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Klonschinski, 2014. "'Economic imperialism' in health care resource allocation - how can equity considerations be incorporated into economic evaluation?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 158-174, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:21:y:2014:i:2:p:158-174
    DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2014.906640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2014.906640
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1350178X.2014.906640?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
    ---><---

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

    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:taf:jecmet:v:21:y:2014:i:2:p:158-174. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    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.