Advertisement

Ethical Issues in the Use of Cost Effectiveness Analysis for the Prioritization of Health Resources

  • Dan Brock
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 78)

Conclusion

I have distinguished above nine distinct issues about equity and justice that arise in the construction and use of cost effectiveness analysis to minimize the burdens of disease and to maximize health outcomes. In each case the concern for equity is in my view valid and warrants some constraints on a goal of unqualified maximization of health outcomes. There has not been space here to pursue at all fully any of these nine issues regarding equity and justice — each is complex, controversial, and important. In each case, my point has been that there are important ethical and value choices to be made in constructing and using the measures; the choices are not merely technical, empirical, or economic, but moral and value choices as well. Each requires explicit attention by health policy makers using CEA. In a few cases I have indicated my own view about how the potential conflict between equity and utilitarian maximization might be resolved, but in other cases I have simply summarized briefly some arguments for giving the particular concern about equity some weight when it conflicts with maximization of utility. For some of these issues, the literature and research is at a relatively early stage and one cannot be confident about how the issues should be resolved or even about the range of plausible positions and supporting reasons on them. However, this is not grounds for ignoring the issues, but instead for getting to work on them and for ensuring that they receive explicit attention and deliberation in decisions about health resource prioritization and allocation.

Keywords

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Distributive Justice Disable Person Life Extension Health Utility Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R.A., Carter, W.B., and Gibson, B.S.: 1981, The Sickness Impact Profile Development and Final Revision of a Health, Medical Care 19, 787–805.Google Scholar
  2. Brock, D.W.: 1988, ‘Ethical issues in recipient selection for organ transplantation,’ in Organ Substitution Technology: Ethical, Legal, and Public Policy Issues (ed.), D. Mathieu, Westview Press, Boulder and London.Google Scholar
  3. Brock, D.W.: 1989, ‘Justice, Health Care, and the Elderly,’ Philosophy & Public Affairs 18(3), 297–312.Google Scholar
  4. Brock, D.W.: 1992, ‘Quality of Life Measures in Health Care and Medical Ethics,’ in A. Sen and M. Nussbaum (eds.), The Quality of Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, D.W.: 1995, ‘Justice and ADA: Does Prioritizing and Rationing Health Care Discriminate against the Disabled?,’ Social Theory and Policy 12, 159–84.Google Scholar
  6. Brock, D.W.: 2000, ‘Health Care Resource Prioritization and Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities,’ in L. Francis and A. Silvers (eds.) Americans with Disabilities, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Brock, D.W.: 2002, ‘Priority to the Worst Off in Health Care Resource Prioritization,’ in M. Battin, R. Rhodes, and A. Silvers (eds.), Medicine and Social Justice, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Broome, J.: 1984, ‘Selecting People Randomly,’ Ethics 95, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniels, N.: 1988, Am I My Parents’ Keeper? An Essay on Justice Between the Young and the Old, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Daniels, N.: 1993, ‘Rationing Fairly: Programmatic Considerations,’ Bioethics, 7/2–3, 224–233.Google Scholar
  11. Daniels, N. and Sabin, J.: 1997, Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers, Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(4), 303–50Google Scholar
  12. Gold, M.R. et. al.: 1996, Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: 1980, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. Kamm, F.M.: 1993, Morality/Mortality. Volume One. Death and Whom to Save From It, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan, R.M. and Anderson, J.P: 1988, ‘A General Health Policy Model: Update and Applications,’ Health Services Research, June 23, 203–35.Google Scholar
  16. Keeler, E.B. and Cretin, S.: 1983, ‘Discounting of Life-Saving and Other Nonmonetary Effects,’ Management Science 29, 300–306.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, C.J.L.: 1994, ‘Quantifying the Burden of Disease: the Technical Basis for Disability-Adjusted life years,’ in Global Comparative. Assessments in the Health Sector: Disease Burden, Expenditures and Intervention Packages, eds. C.J.L. Murray and A.D. Lopez, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  18. Murray, C.J.M.: 1996, Rethinking DALYs, in The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehension Assessment of Mortality and Disability From Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  19. Nord, E.: 1999, Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care: Making Sense of QALYs, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Nord, E.: 1993 ‘The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care,’ Health Policy 24, 227–38.Google Scholar
  21. Parfit, D.: 1991, ‘Equality or priority,’ The Lindley Lecture. Copyright: Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  22. Torrance, G.W. et al.: 1996 ‘Multi attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system.’ Medical Care 34:7, 702–722. Reprinted with permission of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walzer, M.: 1983, Spheres of Justice, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Ware, J.E. and Sherbourne, D.C.: 1992, “The MOS 36-item short form health survey,” Medical Care 30, 473–83.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, A.: 1997, ‘Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument,’ Health Economics 6(2), 117–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. World Bank: 1993, World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations