This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Perneger, T. V. Articles by Bovier, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Perneger, T. V. Articles by Bovier, P. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Physicians’ Attitudes toward Health Care Rationing

Quality of Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Diane P. Martin, PhD

Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Patrick A. Bovier, MD, MPH

Quality of Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland, Department of Community Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Background. Optimal allocation of health care resources under a limited budget is controversial. Particularly important questions are whether rationing decisions should be based on efficiency considerations alone or in combination with equity considerations, and who should be in charge of such decisions. In this study, the authors sought to understand the position of Swiss physicians toward rationing using a previously developed rationing scenario. Methods. The authors examined the acceptability of various scenarios implementing health care rationing in a mail survey of 1184 physicians practicing in Geneva, Switzerland. Respondents were asked to choose between providing a suboptimal cancer screening test A to the whole population, which would save 1000 lives, or selecting half of the population to receive a better but more expensive test B, which would save 1100 lives. Physicians were randomly assigned to 3 versions of the scenario: Beneficiaries of test B could be chosen by lottery, on a first-come-first-served basis, or by medical associations. Results. Only 26% of physicians chose the more effective selective rationing option; this proportion was lowest when test beneficiaries were selected by lottery (14%), intermediate for the first-come-first-served scenario (26%), and highest when selection was left to medical associations (39%; P < 0.001). Hospital-based physicians and general practitioners were less likely to endorse selective rationing than community-based physicians and specialists. Conclusion. Swiss physicians appear to be more concerned about equal allocation of health services than about maximizing health in society, and they prefer physicians to be in charge of rationing decisions.

Key Words: health care rationing • health policy • physicians’ attitudes

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 22, No. 1, 65-70 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200106


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. P. Browman, B. Manns, N. Hagen, C. R. Chambers, A. Simon, and S. Sinclair 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2008; 4(1): 2 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]