The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Health Care Rationing
What the Australian Public Thinks and Why
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2810567 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Malcolm Anderson (0000-0003-2963-7497, Monash University), Jeff Richardson (0000-0002-4248-4280, Monash University), John Mckie (Monash University), Angelo Iezzi (Monash University), Munir Khan (0000-0002-0485-0390, Monash University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 70 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 131-151 |
| Publication date | 2011-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Economics and Sociology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9246 • E-ISSN: 1536-7150 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2010.00766.x |
| PMID | 21322896 |
| OpenAlex | W2099662843 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 17 |
This article examines the preferences of the general public in Australia regarding health care resource allocation. While previous studies have revealed that the public is willing to give priority to particular groups of patients based on their personal characteristics, the present article goes beyond previous efforts in attempting to explain these results. In the present study, there was strong support among respondents for giving “equal priority” to people regardless of their personal characteristics. However, respondents did reveal a preference for married patients over single, for children over adults, for carers of children and the elderly, sole breadwinners, and good community contributors. Further, they would give a lower priority to those perceived as “self-harmers”—smokers, individuals with unhealthy diets, and those who rarely exercise. Variation in the answers according to broad economic and social beliefs across seven different categories (“factors”) influenced the pattern of the public's attitudes towards rationing. The Principal Components Analysis (PCA) indicated that most of the items in our survey are associated with seven factors that explain or capture much of the variation. These relate to a patient's avoidance of self-harm behaviors (Safe Living), their Life Style (diet, exercise, etc.), their contribution to the community through caring for others (Caring), their talents (Gifted), their sexual behavior (Sexuality), their age and marital status (Family), and whether they are an Australian citizen or employed (Citizen). The strength of social preferences—e.g., how strongly respondents would “discriminate” against a recreational drug user or preference a person with a healthy diet—is related to the particular class of preferences
Family medicine · General Social Survey · Harm · Health care · Marital status · Personal care · Political science · Population · Preference · Public health · Rationing · Recreation · Relevance (law) · Sociology · Demography · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Global Health Care Issues · Healthcare Policy and Management · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Social Psychology · Gerontology
Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical Practices
Qaly maximisation and people's preferences
Foundations of social choice theory
Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy
A note on the relative importance that people attach to different factors when setting priorities in health care
Costs and Benefits of Improving Response Rates for a Hard-to-Reach Population
The practice of social research
Research on Survey Data Quality
On the relevance of personal characteristics in setting health priorities
Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities
The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities
Deliberations about deliberative methods
The public is too subjective
Economic Analysis of Social Interactions
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,1 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2016 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |