Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Some caveats
The Person Trade-Off (PTO) is a methodology aimed at measuring the social value of health states. The rest of methodologies would measure individual utility and would be less appropriate for taking resource allocation decisions. However few studies have been conducted to test the validity of the method. We present a pilot study with this objective. The study is based on the result of interviews to 30 undergraduate students in Economics. We judge the validity of PTO answers by their adequacy to three hypothesis of rationality. First, we show that, given certain rationality assumptions, PTO answers should be predicted from answers to Standard Gamble questions. This first hypothesis is not verified. The second hypothesis is that PTO answers should not vary with different frames of equivalent PTO questions. This second hypothesis is also not verified. Our third hypothesis is that PTO values should predict social preferences for allocating resources between patients. This hypothesis is verified. The evidence on the validity of the method is then conflicting.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
- John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
- Fischhoff, Baruch & Quadrel, Marilyn Jacobs & Kamlet, Mark & Loewenstain, George & Dawes, Robyn & Fischbeck, Paul & Klepper, Steven & Leland, Jonathan & Stroh, Patrick, 1993. "Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-234, June.
- Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
- Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:140. 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: ()
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.