Literature DB >> 2734629

Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS.

M C Charny1, P A Lewis, S C Farrow.   

Abstract

In the face of severe resource constraints, health care systems are seeking both to control costs and to ensure maximum benefits for the resources consumed. The use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) is becoming more widely advocated as a decision aid in the solution of resource allocation problems. The QALY combines two dimensions of health outcome--the quantity of life and its quality--in such a way that choices between different services with different purposes can be made using comparisons based on common units of measurement. The combination of these two dimensions allows comparisons between services with different objectives, such as curing and caring services. The QALY, however, lacks a third dimension which is vital to the decision-making process to which it is intended to contribute: the worth of a specific life relative to others. This paper presents results based on interviews of 719 residents of Cardiff drawn at random from the electoral register. The results suggest that further development of the novel methodology used to establish the relative value placed on various human lives is worthwhile. Evidence is given which indicates that the public consider lives to be of unequal worth. The results also show that these values are consistent for different types of choices phrased in different ways on a large number of control variables, implying the existence of a cultural stable value system which is a necessary prerequisite if consensus values of human life are to be used to assist decision-making in non-private health care systems.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiff Health Survey; Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; National Health Service

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2734629     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90352-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  18 in total

Review 1.  Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.

Authors:  Andreas Hasman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-03

Review 2.  Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Resource allocation: whose realism?

Authors:  P A Lewis
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 4.  Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues.

Authors:  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Cost-effectiveness of neonatal surgery: first greeted with scepticism, now increasingly accepted.

Authors:  Marten J Poley; Werner B F Brouwer; Jan J V Busschbach; Frans W J Hazebroek; Dick Tibboel; Frans F H Rutten; Jan C Molenaar
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2007-11-06       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care.

Authors:  E Nord; A Street; J Richardson; H Kuhse; P Singer
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1996-05

7.  Random paired scenarios--a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine.

Authors:  O P Ryynänen; M Myllykangas; T Vaskilampi; J Takala
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  A study on the ethics of microallocation of scarce resources in health care.

Authors:  P A de Carvalho Fortes; E L C P Zoboli
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Principles of distributive justice used by members of the general public in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Stephen Wilmot; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.