PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8994147

A method to elicit utilities for interpersonal comparisons.

A M Holmes
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper examines how values should be assigned to health states when policy decisions must be made about who should receive treatment. The paper demonstrates that, if priority were to be assigned to those people who would benefit most from treatment, standard health-state utilities might fail to identify resource allocations that would maximize total health-related well-being in society. A new measurement instrument is proposed that is based on the direct comparison of the well-being achieved by different people in various health states and thus captures such community priorities. A sample of 72 health administration students used the instrument to evaluate speech and mobility dysfunctions as they afflicted hypothetical people who differed by gender, family status, and occupational type. This preliminary analysis indicates that the instrument is feasible to use, and that the valuations of respondents did, for some health conditions, significantly depend on the type of person afflicted.

Explore related subjects

Cost ControlDecision Making, OrganizationalForecastingHealth Care RationingHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMovement DisordersSpeech DisordersUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A M Holmes. A method to elicit utilities for interpersonal comparisons.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9701700102

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Cancer care, money, and the value of life: whose justice? Which rationality?

Cost-containment in oncology is a moral issue. While economists use the word "rationing" to describe all limitations on resource utilization that result from human choice, the ordinary language distinction between allocation and rationing is morally meaningful and can help oncologists to determine their proper moral role in cost-containment. It is argued that oncologists should not be required to ration at the bedside, nor should they be given financial incentives to practice frugally, nor should they be subjected to a variety of bureaucratic mechanisms to control costs indirectly. In addition, it is argued that the fact that treatments have a price does not logically imply that patients have a price. Cost-effectiveness analysis is often suggested as a means of deciding how best to allocate resources, but some of its many ethical limitations are discussed. The alternative is an open, public, participatory process about how to ration care, abandoning the formulaic pretenses of cost-effectiveness analysis, but with a commitment to reason, good will, and common sense. Oncologists would then be free to advocate for their patients within the constraints imposed by this public process.

Cost Control↗
PubMed2007

Documentation of pharmacists' interventions in an emergency department and associated cost avoidance.

PURPOSE: An analysis was conducted of pharmacist interventions and resuscitation experiences, including pharmacist participation in a hospital emergency department (ED), and the potential cost avoidance associated with the interventions made by the pharmacists. METHODS: All pharmacists working in the ED prospectively documented the pharmacist interventions that were accepted by physicians and nursing staff and entered into a spreadsheet on a weekly basis, between September 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003. Intervention categories included the provision of drug information; recommendations for dosage adjustment, formulary interchange, initiation of medications, alternative drug therapy, discontinuation of drug therapy, changes in medication therapy due to allergy notification, drug therapy duplication prevention, or changes in the route of drug administration; questions from nursing staff; order clarifications; drug compatibility issues; patient information; toxicology; and drug interaction identification. Intervention data were analyzed and the likelihood of harm was scored; interventions were classified and analyzed by calculating average cost, probability of harm, and potential cost avoidance. RESULTS: During the study, 2150 pharmacist interventions were documented. Pharmacists participated in the care of 1042 patients triaged to the resuscitation area of the ED. Cost avoidance during the study was determined to be 1,029,776 dollars. CONCLUSION: The most commonly documented interventions made by pharmacists involved in the care of patients visiting the ED included provision of drug information, dosage adjustment recommendations, responses to questions from nursing staff, formulary interchanges, and suggestions regarding initiation of drug therapy. The potential cost avoidance attributable to the pharmacist interventions during the study period was over 1 million dollars.

Cost Control↗