Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oliver, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oliver, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Prioritizing Health Care: Is "Health" Always an Appropriate Maximand?

Adam Oliver, PhD

LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics London, United Kingdom

In recent years, a few health economists have begun to question the ethical underpinnings of the standard practice of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) maximization as a ubiquitous decision rule in the allocation of health care resources. Prominent among these is Erik Nord, who conjectures that QALY maximization discriminates against the chronically ill and disabled when prioritizing between different individuals (or groups of individuals) for life-extending interventions. Nord has recommended that life years gained should always be given a weight equal to 1 in these circumstances. This article reports an experiment designed as an initial attempt at eliciting some of the thought processes employed by people when they prioritize life-saving health care interventions between patients who differ only in respect to the presence or absence of a disability. The results show that in the priority-setting contexts used, a majority of the respondents perceived the relative health status of the different patients as irrelevant, providing some tentative support for Nord’s argument.

Key Words: priority setting • QALY maximization • worth • rights • fair innings • qualitative analysis

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 24, No. 3, 272-280 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265479
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. Oliver
A Fair Test of the Fair Innings?
Med Decis Making, July 1, 2009; 29(4): 491 - 499.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
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]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
D. L.B. Schwappach
Are Preferences for Equality a Matter of Perspective?
Med Decis Making, July 1, 2005; 25(4): 449 - 459.
[Abstract] [PDF]