The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 223-236

  Wailoo, Allan ^a   Anand, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Empirical social choice; Health care rationing; Procedural fairness

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICES; SERVICE PROVISION; WELFARE PROVISION;

ADULT; AGED; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMPIRICISM; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHYSICIAN; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SOCIAL WELFARE;

EID: 7544245198     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.036     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anand P. Foundations of rational choice under risk. 1993;Oxford University Press, Oxford
2. Anand P. Procedural fairness in economic and social choice. Evidence from a survey of voters Journal of Economic Psychology. 22:2001;247-270
3. Anand P. Social choice as the synthesis of incommensurable claims. The case of health-care rationing Davis J. The social economics of health-care. 2001;London, Routledge
4. Anand P. The integration of claims to health-care. A programming approach Journal of Health Economics. 22:2003;731-745
5. Anand P., Wailoo A.J. Utilities versus rights to publicly provided goods. Arguments and evidence from health-care rationing Economica. 67:2000;543-578
6. Arrow K. Social choice and individual values. 1951;Wiley, New York
7. Bies R.J., Tripp T.M., Neale M.A. Procedural fairness and profit seeking. The perceived legitimacy of market exploitation Journal of Behavioral Decision-making. 6:1993;243-256
8. Brouwer W.B.F., Koopmanschap M.A. On the economic foundations of CEA. Ladies and gentlemen, take your positions! Journal of Health Economics. 19:2000;439-459
9. Clark A., Oswald A. Unhappiness and unemployment. The Economic Journal. 104:1994;648-659
10. Coast J. Citizens, their agents and health-care rationing. An exploratory study using qualitative methods Health Economics. 10:2001;159-174
11. Daniels N., Sabin J. Limits to health-care. Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers Philosophy and Public Affairs. 26:1997;303-350
12. Dillon J.T. The practice of questioning. 1990;Routledge, London
13. Dolan P., Olsen J.A. Equity in health. The importance of different health streams Journal of Health Economics. 20:2001;823-834
14. Donaldson C., Shackley P. Does 'process utility' exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laporoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science & Medicine. 26:1997;303-350
15. Everitt B. Cluster analysis. 3rd ed:1993;Edward Arnold, London
16. Family Expenditure Survey (n=approximately 7000) http://www.statistics. gov.uk/ssd/Surveys/family-expenditure_survey.asp.
17. Family Resources Survey (n=24,000) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ Source.asp?vlnk=227.
18. Fox R.C., Swazey J.P. The courage to fail. A social view of organ transplants and dialysis:1974;University of Chicago Press, Chicago
19. Frey B.S., Pommerehne W.W. On the fairness of pricing - an empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 20:1993;295-307
20. Greenberg J., Folger R. Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organisations. Paulus P. Basic group process. 1983;Springer, New York
21. Hahn F. On some difficulties of the utilitarian economist. Sen A., Williams B. Utilitarianism and beyond. 1982;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
22. Hirschman A.O. Exit, voice and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states:1972;Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
23. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking. Entitlements in the market American Economic Review. 76:1986;728-741
24. Kalven H., Zeisel H. The American jury. 1966;Boston, Little Brown
25. Krehbiel P.J., Cropanzano R. Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research. 13:2000;339-360
26. Lane, R.E. (1988). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2, 177-192. Quoted in E.A. Lind, R. Kanfer, & C.P. Earley (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
27. Lane, R.E. (1988). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2, 177-192. Quoted in E.A. Lind, R. Kanfer, & C.P. Earley (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
28. Lenaghan J. Hard choices in health-care. Rights and rationing in Europe:1997;BMJ Publishing Group, London
29. Leventhal G.S. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Gergen K., Greenberg M., Willis R. Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. 1980;Plenum Press, New York
30. Lind E.A., Kanfer R., Earley C.P. Voice, control, and procedural justice. Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59:1990;952-959
31. Lind E.A., Tyler T.R. The social psychology of procedural justice. 1988;Plenum Press, New York
32. Lissak, R.I., Mendes, H., & Lind, E.A. (1983). Organizational and non-organisational influences on attitudes towards work. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois.
33. Ng Y.K. Economic efficiency versus egalitarian rights. Kyklos. 41:1988;215-237
34. Pommerehne W.W., Hart A., Schneider F. Tragic choices and collective decision-making. An empirical study of voter preferences for alternative collective decision-making mechanisms Economic Journal. 107:1997;618-635
35. Rawls J. A theory of justice. 1971;Harvard University Press, London
36. Rosenberg M. The pre-trial conference. 1964;New York, Columbia University Press
37. Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. 1985;North-Holland, Amsterdam
38. Sen A. Maximisation and the act of choice. Econometrica. 65:1997;745-779
39. Sen A. Consequential evaluation and practical reason. Journal of Philosophy. 97:2000;477-503
40. Sen, A. (2001). Why health equity? Keynote address to third international health economics asssociation conference, York, UK.
41. Sen, A., & Williams, B. (1982) (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Siegel S., Castellan N.J. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed:1988;McGraw-Hill, New York
43. Sugden R. The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. 1986;Basil Blackwell, Oxford
44. Suzumura K. Welfare economics beyond welfarist-consequentialism. The Japanese Economic Review. 51:2000;1-32
45. Thibaut J., Walker L. Procedural justice. A psychological analysis:1975;Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
46. Thibaut J., Walker L. A theory of procedure. California Law Review. 18:1978;51-74
47. Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism. Philosophical theories and age weighting Health Economics. 9:2000;57-68
48. Tyler T. The role of perceived injustice in defendant's evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review. 18:1984;51-74
49. Tyler, T. (1987a). Why citizens follow the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy and compliance. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
50. Tyler, T. (1987b). Procedural justice research. Social Justice Review, 41. Quoted in M. R. Fondacaro (1995). Towards a synthesis of law and social science: Due process and procedural justice in the context of national health-care reforms. Denver University Law Review, 72, 303-358.
51. Tyler, T. (1987b). Procedural justice research. Social Justice Review, 41. Quoted in M. R. Fondacaro (1995). Towards a synthesis of law and social science: Due process and procedural justice in the context of national health-care reforms. Denver University Law Review, 72, 303-358.
52. Tyler T., Rasinski K., McGraw K. The influence of perceived injustice on support for political authorities. Journal of Applied Psychology. 15:1985;700-725
53. Williams A. Intergenerational equity. An exploration of the 'fair innings' argument Health Economics. 6:1997;117-132