Fair innings: an empirical test

Matthew D. Adler, Maddalena Ferranna, James K. Hammitt (), Eugénie de Laubier and Nicolas Treich ()
Additional contact information
Matthew D. Adler: Harvard University
Maddalena Ferranna: TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
James K. Hammitt: Harvard University, TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
Eugénie de Laubier: CEPREMAP - Centre pour la recherche économique et ses applications - ECO ENS-PSL - Département d'économie de l'ENS-PSL - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres
Nicolas Treich: TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Covid‐19; Ethical preferences; Fair innings; Lifesaving; Prioritarianism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-07
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Health Economics, 2025, 37 (7), pp.1215-1381. ⟨10.1002/hec.4963⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05169618

DOI: 10.1002/hec.4963

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().