Cost-effectiveness, incompleteness and discrimination
(2023) In Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32(2). p.163-173- Abstract
- This paper argues that cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector introduces a discrimination risk that has thus far been underappreciated and outlines some approaches one can take toward this. It is argued that appropriate standards used in cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector fail to always fully determine an optimal option, which entails that cost-effectiveness analysis often leaves decision makers with large sets of permissible options. Larger sets of permissible options increase the role of decision makers’ biases, whims, and prejudices, which means that the discrimination risk increases. Two ways of mitigating this are identified: tinkering with standards used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and outlining... (More)
- This paper argues that cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector introduces a discrimination risk that has thus far been underappreciated and outlines some approaches one can take toward this. It is argued that appropriate standards used in cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector fail to always fully determine an optimal option, which entails that cost-effectiveness analysis often leaves decision makers with large sets of permissible options. Larger sets of permissible options increase the role of decision makers’ biases, whims, and prejudices, which means that the discrimination risk increases. Two ways of mitigating this are identified: tinkering with standards used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and outlining anti-discrimination guidelines for decision makers. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/75eea684-871d-4f22-8db1-70e45a42203e
- author
- Herlitz, Anders LU
- publishing date
- 2023
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- QALY, discrimination, cost-effectiveness, healthcare rationing
- in
- Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
- volume
- 32
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85151500718
- pmid:36330813
- ISSN
- 0963-1801
- DOI
- 10.1017/S0963180122000263
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 75eea684-871d-4f22-8db1-70e45a42203e
- date added to LUP
- 2023-10-27 10:10:54
- date last changed
- 2023-11-02 03:00:02
@article{75eea684-871d-4f22-8db1-70e45a42203e,
abstract = {{This paper argues that cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector introduces a discrimination risk that has thus far been underappreciated and outlines some approaches one can take toward this. It is argued that appropriate standards used in cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector fail to always fully determine an optimal option, which entails that cost-effectiveness analysis often leaves decision makers with large sets of permissible options. Larger sets of permissible options increase the role of decision makers’ biases, whims, and prejudices, which means that the discrimination risk increases. Two ways of mitigating this are identified: tinkering with standards used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and outlining anti-discrimination guidelines for decision makers.}},
author = {{Herlitz, Anders}},
issn = {{0963-1801}},
keywords = {{QALY; discrimination; cost-effectiveness; healthcare rationing}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{163--173}},
publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
series = {{Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics}},
title = {{Cost-effectiveness, incompleteness and discrimination}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000263}},
doi = {{10.1017/S0963180122000263}},
volume = {{32}},
year = {{2023}},
}