公平回合:一个实证检验。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-04-10 DOI:10.1002/hec.4963
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,&nbsp;Maddalena Ferranna,&nbsp;James K. Hammitt,&nbsp;Eugénie de Laubier,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Maddalena Ferranna,&nbsp;James K. Hammitt,&nbsp;Eugénie de Laubier,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公平原则指出,公平要求将挽救生命的治疗分配给年轻患者,而不是老年患者,因为每个人都能获得相同的延长寿命。它的动机是这样一种观念,即老年患者已经从更长的寿命中受益,因此与尚未过上“公平生活”的年轻患者相比,他们更少要求获得稀缺的治疗资源。这一原则在理论上可以通过应用于终身福利的优先社会福利函数来证明。我们进行了一项在线调查,以测试(法国)普通民众是否支持这一原则。我们得到了大量但不是普遍的支持。当选择分配一种可以为老年或年轻患者提供相同生命延长的治疗时,大约一半的受访者会将治疗分配给年轻患者,而大约三分之一的受访者对哪个患者接受治疗漠不关心,大约五分之一的受访者会将治疗分配给老年患者。固定老年患者的延长寿命,减少年轻患者的延长寿命,会减少(增加)将治疗分配给年轻(老年)患者的应答者比例。这些结果突出了平等待遇原则和优先考虑那些处境较差的人的原则之间的紧张关系,这使医疗保健政策混乱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fair Innings: An Empirical Test

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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