Priority Preferences: “End of Life” Does Not Matter, But Total Life Does

Sep 1, 2013, 00:00
10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.002
https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(13)01858-5/fulltext
Title : Priority Preferences: “End of Life” Does Not Matter, But Total Life Does
Citation : https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/action/showCitFormats?pii=S1098-3015(13)01858-5&doi=10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.002
First page : 1063
Section Title : Health Policy Analysis
Open access? : No
Section Order : 7

There is increasing evidence that the social value of an incremental health gain depends on patient characteristics, such as their age and their prognosis. This article presents an analytical framework to illustrate how a disease splits our life expectancy into 1) past health (age), 2) prognosis untreated, 3) gain from treatment, and 4) incurable loss. A Norwegian population sample was asked to make pairwise choices and prioritize hypothetical patients who differed in terms of age (30, 50, and 70 years old), remaining lifetime without treatment (1, 3, and 10 years), and increase in remaining lifetime with treatment (1 month, 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years). Their preferences reveal strong support for the “fair innings” argument that total lifetime inequalities should be reduced. Differences in patients’ remaining lifetime without treatment did not matter, implying little support for the “end-of-life” argument that a short life expectancy makes patients entitled to preferential treatment.

Categories :
  • Methodological & Statistical Research
  • Preference Methods
Tags :
  • “end of life”
  • “fair innings.”
  • priority preferences
Regions :
  • Africa
  • Eastern and Central Europe
  • Middle East
ViH Article Tags :