Advertisement

Economics and the Value of (Later) Life

  • José Luis Iparraguirre
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reviews alternative economic approaches at valuing human life and discusses their uses and limitations and whether they reflect intrinsic ageism.

References

  1. Alonso-Coello, Pablo et al. “Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: Physician and patient perspectives.” Health Expectations 18, no. 6 (2015): 2318–2327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, Stephen, and Amiram Gafni. “Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?” Journal of Health Economics 11, no. 3 (1992): 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bognar, Greg. “Priority setting and age.” In Prioritization in Medicine An International Dialogue. Edited by Eckhard Nagel, Michael Lauerer, and Valentin Schätzlein, 163–178. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock, Dan W. “Priority to the worse off in health-care resource prioritization.” In Medicine and Social Justice Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. Edited by Rosamond Rhodes, Margaret P. Battin, and Anita Silvers, 362–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan-Hughes, A.M., and J. Kusel. The Trade-Off Between Qaly Maximization And Social Values: A Systematic Review Of Public Opinion Surveys. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, May 21 25 2016. Washington, DC, 2016. http://wwwcostellomedicalcom/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Poster_PHP54-1.pdf.
  6. Callahan, Daniel. Setting Limits: Medical Care in an Ageing Society. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. Carreon, Daisy, and Andrew Noymer. “Health-related quality of life in older adults: Testing the double jeopardy hypothesis.” Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011): 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claxton, Karl et al. Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions. CHE Research Paper 54. York, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, Norman. Just Health. Meeting Health Needs Fairly. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, Pennifer Ronald Wilson, and Ildy Shannon. Years of Healthy Life. Healthy People 2000 Statistical Note. Hyattsville, MD, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Fuchs, Victor R. Who Shall Live?: Health, Economics, and Social Choice, vol. 3. Economic Ideas Leading to the 21st Century. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, Inc., 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, Hilary et al. “Do People favour policies that protect future generations? Evidence from a British survey of adults.” Journal of Social Policy 46, no. 3 (2017): 423–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray, Alastair et al. Applied Methods of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Hand-Books in Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, John. The Value of Life. London: Routledge, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. —. “Qalyfying the value of life.” Journal of Medical Ethics 13, no. 3 (1987): 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, James D. et al. “Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer.” Archives of Surgery 143, no. 4 (2008): 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haywood, K.L., A.M. Garratt, and R. Fitzpatrick. “Quality of life in older people: A structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments.” Quality of Life Research 14, no. 7 (2005): 1651–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamm, Frances Myrna. Morality Mortality: Death and Whom to Save from It. Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Keeney, Ralph L., and Howard Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Applied probability and statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klarman, Herbert, John Francis, and Gerald Rosenthal. “Cost effectiveness analysis applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease.” Medical Care 6, no. 1 (1968): 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson, Bruce A. “Calculating disability-adjusted-life-years lost (DALYs) in discrete-time.” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 11, no. 8 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-11-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd-Sherlock, Peter et al. “A premature mortality target for the SDG for health is ageist.” The Lancet 385, no. 9983 (2015): 2147–2148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lübbe, Weyma. “Social value maximization and the multiple goals assumption: Is priority setting a maximizing task at all?” In Prioritization in Medicine An International Dialogue. Edited by Eckhard Nagel, Michael Lauerer, and Valentin Schätzlein, 57–66. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Lynn, Jonathan, and Anthony Jay. The Complete Yes Prime Minister. London: BBC Books, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. Maansdotter, Anna et al. “We propose a novel measure for social welfare and public health: Capability-adjusted life-years, CALYs.” Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 15, no. 4 (2017): 1–4.Google Scholar
  26. Machado, Antonio. Poesías Completas. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe S.A., 1997Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, Henry. Do no Harm. Stories of Life Death and Brain Surgery. London: Phoenix, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. McKie, John et al. The Allocation of Health Care Resources: An Ethical Evaluation of the ‘QALY’ Approach. Farnham: Ashgate, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. Mehrez, Abraham, and Amiram Gafni. “Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory and healthy-years equivalents.” Medical Decision Making 9, no. 2 (1989): 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moodley, Roy. “Double, triple, multiple jeopardy.” Anti-Discriminatory Counselling Practice. Edited by Colin Lago and Barbara Smith, 120–134. London: Sage Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 (PMG9). Technical report. London, 2013.Google Scholar
  32. —. Myocardial Infarction (acute): Early Rule Out Using High-Sensitivity Troponin Tests (Elec- sys Troponin T High-Sensitive ARCHITECT STAT High Sensitive Troponin-I and AccuTnI+ 3 assays). Diagnostics guidance 15. London, 2014.Google Scholar
  33. Nord, Erik. “An alternative to QALYs: The saved young life equivalent (SAVE).” British Medical Journal 305, no. 6858 (1992): 875–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nord, Erik et al. “The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care.” Health Care Analysis 4, no. 2 (1996): 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Brien, Bernie J. et al. “Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care?” Health Economics 11, no. 2 (2002): 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Räsänen, Pirjo et al. “Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4, 1 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-74(citedonpage140).
  37. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  38. Reenen, Mandy van, and Mark Oppe. EQ-5D-3L User Guide Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-3L Instrument. Technical report. Version 5.1. Rotterdam, 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Rowen, Donna, John Brazier, and Jennifer Roberts. “Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship?” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 7, no. 1 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Severens, Johan L. et al. “Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose.” Pharmacoeconomics 23, no. 12 (2005): 1207–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shafrin, Jason et al. “Patient versus physician valuation of durable survival gains: Implications for value framework assessments.” Value in Health 20, no. 2 (2017): 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shin, Dong Wook et al. “Discordance among patient preferences, caregiver preferences, and caregiver predictions of patient preferences regarding disclosure of terminal status and end-of-life choices.” Psycho-Oncology 24, no. 2 (2015): 212–219.Google Scholar
  43. The World Bank. World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tidermark, J. et al. “Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures.” Quality of Life Research 12, no. 8 (2003): 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Hout, Ben A. et al. “Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial.” Health Economics 3, no. 5 (1994): 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Versteegh, Matthijs, and Werner Brouwer. “Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines.” Social Science and Medicine165 (2016): 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vincent, John. Geronticide Killing the Elderly London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar
  48. Ware, J.E. et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, Alan. “Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument.” Health Economics 6, no. 2 (1997): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Luis Iparraguirre
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MorónBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Age UKLondonUK

Personalised recommendations