PubMed · 14687283
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Gerd Gigerenzer. 2003. Why does framing influence judgment?. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.30901.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper develops a model of the supply of elective treatments within a duopolistic market structure where patients can be referred to the hospital with the lowest waiting times. We investigate the effect of a higher degree of substitutability among the two hospitals on equilibrium supply, waiting time and the size of the waiting list. The degree of substitutability is interpreted as the degree of choice or the extent to which patients can switch from one hospital to the other. We show that the greater the degree of substitutability among hospitals, the lower is the supply and the higher the waiting time. The effect on waiting list size is ambiguous. This result holds either when the hospital is remunerated with a fixed budget or with activity-based funding. However, the reduction in supply and the increase in waiting time generated by higher substitutability are higher when hospitals are remunerated with fixed budgets. The main implication of the model is that, under certain assumptions, policies aimed at increasing provider choice may fail to reduce waiting times.
In a recent paper in this journal, Andrew Lloyd reviewed some potential threats to the estimation of health care benefits in monetary terms. Particular emphasis was placed on the extent to which the use of non-compensatory heuristics may distort the results. Although it is useful to be reminded of these problems, Lloyd's paper does not do justice to the attention such issues have already received, and continue to receive, within Health Economics. The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of the evidence by considering some of the methodological work that health economists have conducted in many of the areas pointed out by Lloyd. Secondly, and more importantly, it suggests ways to combine the economic and psychological views of human decision-making, providing a much more positive perspective to all those researchers out there who recognize the necessity of using stated preference methods to inform health policy.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate obstacles to generic substitution and savings achieved during the first year after Sweden introduced generic substitution in October 2002. METHODS: Normal prescriptions encompassed by generic substitution were included. Data on dispensed prescriptions in the Vastra Gotaland region was obtained from the National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies. The outcome variables were investigated in three categories of drugs represented by two indicator drugs each. RESULTS: In total, 501,400 dispensed prescriptions of six indicator drugs were analysed. The prescriber opposed substitution in 1-8% of the dispensed prescriptions, varying between the indicator drugs. Patients declined substitution more frequently when the average saving per substitution was low. Substitution occurred most frequently in indicator drugs where the average saving per substitution was high. The total possible saving was 26 million Swedish krona (Swedish krona 1=U.S. $0.13) for the indicator drugs. The actual saving achieved by substitution was on average 60% of the total possible savings and was largely dependent on the extent to which the pharmacies kept the cheapest brand in stock. CONCLUSIONS: Generic substitution has been implemented in practice although it did not reach full dividend during the first year. The potential savings from extended use of generic substitution are substantial.