EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Does a patient's health potential affect the social valuation of health services?

Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi and Aimee Maxwell

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 4, 1-15

Abstract: Background: Patients with a permanent impairment may be unable to reach full health. Consequently health services which cure illnesses which are unrelated to the impairment may increase health less than services for patients with no impairment. While it has been argued that this should not lead to discrimination against impaired patients there is little evidence to determine whether this equity-efficiency trade-off is consistent with social values. Objectives: To measure the effect of permanent impairment upon the social valuation of services for unrelated illnesses. Methods: Social valuations of services for illnesses associated with mobility, depression or pain were assessed and compared for patients with and without a permanent impairment using the Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP) instrument. The maximum valuation of services for impaired patients was also compared with the maximum utility which could be gained when utility was measured using three multi attribute utility instruments. Results: Curing the illness of impaired patients was valued 8–11 percent less than the cure of patients with no impairment. Discrimination decreased as the severity of the illness increased. Valuation of health states using the utility instruments implied significantly greater discrimination than the social valuations using the RS-WTP instrument. Conclusions: Health services are valued less highly when a patient’s health potential is impaired. However discrimination is significantly less than would occur if the value of the services were limited to the value of the health state causing the impairment. The argument for disregarding a patient’s limited health potential when resources are allocated therefore receives some support from social valuations but the case for completely equal treatment depends upon additional ethical arguments.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192585 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 92585&type=printable (application/pdf)

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:plo:pone00:0192585

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192585

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192585