|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices
A Partial Explanation of Why Oregon's Cost-Effectiveness List Failed
Peter A. Ubel, MD
George Loewenstein, PhD
Dennis Scanlon, MA
Mark Kamlet, PhD
Objective. To test whether cost-effectiveness analysis and present methods of elic iting health condition "utilities" capture the public's values for health care rationing. Design. Two surveys of economics students. The first survey measured their utilities for three states of health, using either analog scale, standard gamble, or time tradeoff. The second survey measured their preferences, in paired rationing choices of the health states from the first survey and also compared with treatment of acutely fatal appendicitis. The rationing choices each subject faced were individualized according to his or her utility responses, so that the subject should have been indifferent between the two conditions in each rationing choice. Results. The analog-scale elicitation method produced significantly lower utilities than the time-tradeoff and standard-gam ble methods for two of the three conditions (p < 0.001 ). Compared with the rationing choices, all three utility-elicitation methods placed less value on the importance of saving lives and treating more severely ill people compared with less severely ill ones (p < 0.0001 ). The subjects' rationing choices indicated that they placed values on treating severely ill people that were tenfold to one-hundred-thousand-fold greater than would have been predicted by their utility responses. However, the subjects' rationing choices showed internal inconsistency, as, for example, treatments that were indicated to be ten times more beneficial in one scenario were valued as one hundred times more beneficial in other scenarios. Conclusions. The subjects soundly rejected the rationing choices derived from their utility responses. This suggests that people's an swers to utility elicitations cannot be easily translated into social policy. However, per son-tradeoff elicitations, like those given in our rationing survey, cannot be substituted for established methods of utility elicitation until they can be performed in ways that yield acceptable internal consistency. Key words: cost-effectiveness; utility assess ment ; rationing; medical ethics; health policy; standard gamble; time tradeoff; Oregon. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:108-116)
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 16, No. 2,
108-116 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600202
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. O. Edelen, M. A. Burnam, K. E. Watkins, J. J. Escarce, H. Huskamp, H. H. Goldman, and G. Rachelefsky
Obtaining Utility Estimates of the Health Value of Commonly Prescribed Treatments for Asthma and Depression
Med Decis Making,
September 1, 2008;
28(5):
732 - 750.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Zikmund-Fisher, D. M. Smith, P. A. Ubel, and A. Fagerlin
Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations
Med Decis Making,
October 1, 2007;
27(5):
663 - 671.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Damschroder, T. R. Roberts, B. J. Zikmund-Fisher, and P. A. Ubel
Why People Refuse to Make Tradeoffs in Person Tradeoff Elicitations: A Matter of Perspective?
Med Decis Making,
May 1, 2007;
27(3):
266 - 280.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L.B. Schwappach
Are Preferences for Equality a Matter of Perspective?
Med Decis Making,
July 1, 2005;
25(4):
449 - 459.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Damschroder, J. Baron, J. C. Hershey, D. A. Asch, C. Jepson, and P. A. Ubel
The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation Versus Face-to-Face Interview
Med Decis Making,
March 1, 2004;
24(2):
170 - 180.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F. M. Stalmeier
Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments
Med Decis Making,
February 1, 2002;
22(1):
53 - 64.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Baron and P. A. Ubel
Revising a Priority List Based on Cost-Effectiveness: The Role of the Prominence Effect and Distorted Utility Judgments
Med Decis Making,
August 1, 2001;
21(4):
278 - 287.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Ubel, J. Baron, and D. A. Asch
Preference for Equity As a Framing Effect
Med Decis Making,
May 1, 2001;
21(3):
180 - 189.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Neumann, P. W. Stone, R. H. Chapman, E. A. Sandberg, and C. M. Bell
The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976-1997
Ann Intern Med,
June 20, 2000;
132(12):
964 - 972.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Treadwell and L. A. Lenert
Health Values and Prospect Theory
Med Decis Making,
August 1, 1999;
19(3):
344 - 352.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Ubel and A. L. Caplan
Geographic Favoritism in Liver Transplantation -- Unfortunate or Unfair?
N. Engl. J. Med.,
October 29, 1998;
339(18):
1322 - 1325.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-L. Pinto-Prades and A. Lopez-Nicolas
More Evidence of the Plateau Effect: A Social Perspective
Med Decis Making,
August 1, 1998;
18(3):
287 - 294.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Ubel and G. Loewenstein
Public Perceptions of the Importance of Prognosis in Allocating Transplantable Livers to Children
Med Decis Making,
August 1, 1996;
16(3):
234 - 241.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hadorn
The Oregon Priority-setting Exercise: Cost-Effectiveness and the Rule of Rescue, Revisited
Med Decis Making,
June 1, 1996;
16(2):
117 - 119.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
