IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v34y2025i7p1350-1364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair Innings: An Empirical Test

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew D. Adler
  • Maddalena Ferranna
  • James K. Hammitt
  • Eugénie de Laubier
  • Nicolas Treich

Abstract

The fair innings principle states that fairness requires allocating life‐saving treatments to younger rather than older patients when each would gain the same extension in longevity. It is motivated by the notion that older patients have already benefited from a longer life and so have less claim to scarce treatment resources than younger patients who have not yet lived their “fair innings.” The principle can be theoretically justified by a prioritarian social welfare function applied to lifetime wellbeing. We conducted an online survey to test whether there is support for the principle in the general population (in France). We find substantial but not universal support. When choosing to allocate a treatment that would provide the same life extension to an older or a younger patient, about one‐half the respondents would allocate the treatment to the younger patient while about one‐third are indifferent to which patient is treated and about one‐fifth would allocate treatment to the older patient. Holding the life extension to the older patient fixed, decreasing the life extension to the younger patient decreases (increases) the fraction of respondents that would allocate treatment to the younger (older) patient. These results highlight the tension between principles of equal treatment and of giving priority to those who are worse off that confound healthcare policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew D. Adler & Maddalena Ferranna & James K. Hammitt & Eugénie de Laubier & Nicolas Treich, 2025. "Fair Innings: An Empirical Test," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(7), pages 1350-1364, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:34:y:2025:i:7:p:1350-1364
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4963
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4963?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
    ---><---

    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:wly:hlthec:v:34:y:2025:i:7:p:1350-1364. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.