Matthew D. Adler, Maddalena Ferranna, James K. Hammitt, Eugénie de Laubier, Nicolas Treich
{"title":"公平回合:一个实证检验。","authors":"Matthew D. Adler, Maddalena Ferranna, James K. Hammitt, Eugénie de Laubier, Nicolas Treich","doi":"10.1002/hec.4963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The fair innings principle states that fairness requires allocating life-saving treatments to younger rather than older patients when each would gain the same extension in longevity. It is motivated by the notion that older patients have already benefited from a longer life and so have less claim to scarce treatment resources than younger patients who have not yet lived their “fair innings.” The principle can be theoretically justified by a prioritarian social welfare function applied to lifetime wellbeing. We conducted an online survey to test whether there is support for the principle in the general population (in France). We find substantial but not universal support. When choosing to allocate a treatment that would provide the same life extension to an older or a younger patient, about one-half the respondents would allocate the treatment to the younger patient while about one-third are indifferent to which patient is treated and about one-fifth would allocate treatment to the older patient. Holding the life extension to the older patient fixed, decreasing the life extension to the younger patient decreases (increases) the fraction of respondents that would allocate treatment to the younger (older) patient. These results highlight the tension between principles of equal treatment and of giving priority to those who are worse off that confound healthcare policy.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 7","pages":"1350-1364"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fair Innings: An Empirical Test\",\"authors\":\"Matthew D. Adler, Maddalena Ferranna, James K. Hammitt, Eugénie de Laubier, Nicolas Treich\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hec.4963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The fair innings principle states that fairness requires allocating life-saving treatments to younger rather than older patients when each would gain the same extension in longevity. It is motivated by the notion that older patients have already benefited from a longer life and so have less claim to scarce treatment resources than younger patients who have not yet lived their “fair innings.” The principle can be theoretically justified by a prioritarian social welfare function applied to lifetime wellbeing. We conducted an online survey to test whether there is support for the principle in the general population (in France). We find substantial but not universal support. When choosing to allocate a treatment that would provide the same life extension to an older or a younger patient, about one-half the respondents would allocate the treatment to the younger patient while about one-third are indifferent to which patient is treated and about one-fifth would allocate treatment to the older patient. Holding the life extension to the older patient fixed, decreasing the life extension to the younger patient decreases (increases) the fraction of respondents that would allocate treatment to the younger (older) patient. These results highlight the tension between principles of equal treatment and of giving priority to those who are worse off that confound healthcare policy.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":\"34 7\",\"pages\":\"1350-1364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4963\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4963","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The fair innings principle states that fairness requires allocating life-saving treatments to younger rather than older patients when each would gain the same extension in longevity. It is motivated by the notion that older patients have already benefited from a longer life and so have less claim to scarce treatment resources than younger patients who have not yet lived their “fair innings.” The principle can be theoretically justified by a prioritarian social welfare function applied to lifetime wellbeing. We conducted an online survey to test whether there is support for the principle in the general population (in France). We find substantial but not universal support. When choosing to allocate a treatment that would provide the same life extension to an older or a younger patient, about one-half the respondents would allocate the treatment to the younger patient while about one-third are indifferent to which patient is treated and about one-fifth would allocate treatment to the older patient. Holding the life extension to the older patient fixed, decreasing the life extension to the younger patient decreases (increases) the fraction of respondents that would allocate treatment to the younger (older) patient. These results highlight the tension between principles of equal treatment and of giving priority to those who are worse off that confound healthcare policy.
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.