Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes

Liam Strand, Lars Sandman, Emil Persson, David Andersson, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund and Gustav Tinghög
Additional contact information
Liam Strand: Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden
Lars Sandman: Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden
Emil Persson: Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden
David Andersson: Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden
Ann-Charlotte Nedlund: Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden
Gustav Tinghög: Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Gustav Tinghög

Medical Decision Making, 2024, vol. 44, issue 6, 641-648

Abstract: Background The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment? Design Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels. Results In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level. Implications Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement. Highlights We explore public’ attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters. People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment. People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level. Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.

Keywords: equivalence thesis; experiment; health policy; priority setting (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241258195 (text/html)

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:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:6:p:641-648

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241258195

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().