Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: A partial explanation of why oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 108-116

  Ubel, Peter A ^a   Loewenstein, George ^b   Scanlon, Dennis ^b   Kamlet, Mark ^b  

^a Center for Bioethics   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Health policy; Medical ethics; Oregon; Rationing; Standard gamble; Time tradeoff; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

ADULT; APPENDICITIS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH RESOURCES; HUMANS; MALE; OREGON; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATE HEALTH PLANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029933197     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600202     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Kaplan RM. A quality-of-life approach to health resource allocation. In: Strosberg MA, Wiener JM, Baker R, Fein IA, eds. Rationing America's Medical Care: The Oregon Plan and Beyond. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992, pp 60-77.
2. Eddy DM. Cost-effectiveness analysis: a conversation with my father. JAMA. 1992;267:1669-75.
3. Dixon J, Welch HG. Priority setting: lessons from Oregon. Lancet. 1991;337:891.
4. Garland MJ. Rationing in public: Oregon's priority-setting methodology. In: Strosberg MA, Wiener JM, Baker R, Fein IA, eds. Rationing America's Medical Care: The Oregon Plan and Beyond. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992.
5. Klevit HD, Bates AC, Castanares T, Kirk EP, Sipes-Metzler PR, Wopat R. Prioritization of health care services: a progress report by the Oregon Health Services Commission. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:912-6.
6. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA. 1991;265:2218-25.
7. Morell V. Oregon puts bold health plan on ice. Science. 1990;249:468-71.
8. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plan Manage. 1991;6:234-42.
9. Nord E, Richardson J, Marcarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Technol Assess. 1993;9:463-78.
10. Nord E. Unjustified use of the quality of well-being scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy. 1993;24:45-53.
11. Eddy DM. Oregon's methods: did cost-effectiveness fail? JAMA. 1991;266:2135-41.
12. Oregon. Prioritization of Health Services: A Report to the Governor and Legislature, 1992.
13. Sox HC, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical Decision Making. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1988.
14. Bostic R, Luce RD, Hernstein RJ. The effect on the preference reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. J Econ Behav Organiz. 1990;11.
15. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31:697-704.
16. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-29.
17. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-econ Planning Sci. 1976;10:129-36.
18. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22:543-52.
19. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukoz Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:811-8.
20. Revicki D. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care. 1992;30(5 suppl): MS274-82.
21. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:505-12.
22. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C, McGeer A Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long Term Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982.
23. Drummond MF, Heyse J, Cook J, McGuire A. Selection of end points in economic evaluations of coronary-heart-disease interventions. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:184-90.
24. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989:42:459-71.
25. Schelling TC. The life you save may be your own. In: Chase SB, ed. Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1968.
26. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy. 1995;34:141-51.
27. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259-62.
28. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981;211:453-8.