The Citizens' Distributional Preferences for Health Care Resource Allocations: The Non-Negligible Role of Option Value

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1002/hec.70006
Lise Desireé Hansen, Trine Kjær, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
{"title":"The Citizens' Distributional Preferences for Health Care Resource Allocations: The Non-Negligible Role of Option Value","authors":"Lise Desireé Hansen,&nbsp;Trine Kjær,&nbsp;Dorte Gyrd-Hansen","doi":"10.1002/hec.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The stated preference literature on equity in health aims to enhance our understanding of the public's preferences for allocation of health resources to promote fairness and justice in the distribution of healthcare. This paper explores how different elicitation approaches impact on the elicited distributional preferences in the context of health. We randomly allocated respondents to one of two elicitation approaches: the <i>ex post</i> social decision maker perspective and the private <i>ex ante</i> insurance perspective. Respondents were asked to make choices between healthcare resource allocation distributions that follow different priority rules regarding maximization and equality. We find that preferences differ across the two approaches with the health maximization objective receiving less support under the <i>ex ante</i> perspective. The contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that option value, in addition to inequality aversion, provides an important argument for average citizens' distributional preferences, and that both sets of preferences may represent important inputs to policy making.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 10","pages":"1773-1781"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.70006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.70006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The stated preference literature on equity in health aims to enhance our understanding of the public's preferences for allocation of health resources to promote fairness and justice in the distribution of healthcare. This paper explores how different elicitation approaches impact on the elicited distributional preferences in the context of health. We randomly allocated respondents to one of two elicitation approaches: the ex post social decision maker perspective and the private ex ante insurance perspective. Respondents were asked to make choices between healthcare resource allocation distributions that follow different priority rules regarding maximization and equality. We find that preferences differ across the two approaches with the health maximization objective receiving less support under the ex ante perspective. The contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that option value, in addition to inequality aversion, provides an important argument for average citizens' distributional preferences, and that both sets of preferences may represent important inputs to policy making.

Abstract Image

公民医疗资源分配偏好:选择权价值的不可忽视作用。
关于卫生公平的偏好文献旨在加深我们对公众对卫生资源分配偏好的理解,以促进卫生资源分配的公平和正义。本文探讨了不同的启发方法如何影响在健康背景下引出的分配偏好。我们将受访者随机分配到两种启发方法之一:事后社会决策者视角和私人事前保险视角。受访者被要求在医疗资源分配中做出选择,这些分配遵循不同的最大化和平等优先规则。我们发现两种方法的偏好不同,事前视角下健康最大化目标得到的支持较少。本文的贡献在于证明除了不平等厌恶之外,期权价值为普通公民的分配偏好提供了一个重要的论据,并且这两组偏好都可能代表政策制定的重要投入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信