Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:55:29.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social preferences for the inclusion of indirect benefits in the evaluation of publicly funded health services: results from an Australian survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2011

John McKie  and
Jeff Richardson
John McKie*
Affiliation:
Senoir Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia
Jeff Richardson
Affiliation:
Founding Director, Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia
*
Correspondence to: John McKie, Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia. Email: john.mckie@buseco.monash.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inclusion of both monetary and non-monetary indirect benefits in economic evaluations of public health programmes and services can have significant distributive effects between patient groups. As a result, some patients may be advantaged and others disadvantaged for reasons not directly related to health outcomes or (direct) treatment costs. In pluralistic democracies, there is a case for consulting the community on the fairness of policies that have such distributive implications. This paper reports the results of two pilot studies aimed at uncovering the preferences of the Australian public for the inclusion of indirect benefits in the evaluation of services for its national health scheme, Medicare. The initial survey found some support for taking account of non-monetary indirect benefits – for example, the social contribution made by parents of young children and carers of elderly relatives. By contrast, there was little support for giving high taxpayers priority access to general Medicare services, to life-saving organ transplants, or to very costly drugs, despite the indirect social benefits of doing so. However, such support increased significantly in the follow-up study when the outcomes were characterised as certain, identifiable and health related, and the opportunity costs of failing to take account of indirect benefits were made very clear. The follow-up survey provided evidence of public scepticism about the willingness or ability of government to use additional tax receipts for socially beneficial purposes, and/or a preference for programmes and services that focus on health rather than welfare more generally.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , 06 September 2011 , pp. 449 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abellan-Perpiñán, J.-M.Prades, J.-L. P. (1999), ‘Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?’, Health Economics, 8(8): 701–707.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J., Lomas, J., Eyles, J., Birch, S.Veenstra, G. (1995), ‘Does the community want devolved authority? Results of deliberative polling in Ontario’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153(4): 403–412.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, M., Richardson, J., McKie, J., Iezzi, A.Khan, M. (2011), ‘The relevance of personal characteristics in health care rationing’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(1): 131–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowie, C., Richardson, A.Sykes, W. (1995), ‘Consulting the public about health service priorities’, British Medical Journal, 311(7013): 1155–1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J. A., Baltussen, R. M.Rutten, F. F. (2006), ‘A dollar is a dollar is a dollar – or is it?’, Value in Health, 9(5): 341–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, L. X.Kalb, G. (2006), ‘Health status and labour force participation: evidence from Australia’, Health Economics, 15(3): 241–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A.Gillett, G. (1993), ‘Justice and The Right to Health Care’, in Ethical Issues in Defining Core Services, Wellington: The National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services.Google Scholar
Charny, M. C., Lewis, P. A.Farrow, S. C. (1989), ‘Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS’, Social Science and Medicine, 28(12): 1331–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia (1995), Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Economic Analyses, Canberra: Department of Health and Community Services.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. J. (1989), ‘The normative economics of health care finance and provision’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 5(1): 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culyer, A. J. (1990), ‘Commodities, Characteristics of Commodities, Characteristics of People, Utilities, and The Quality of Life’, in S. Baldwin, C. Godfrey and C. Propper (eds), Quality of Life: Perspectives and Policies, London and New York: Routledge, 9–27.Google Scholar
Disney, R., Emmerson, C.Wakefield, M. (2006), ‘Ill health and retirement in Britain: a panel data-based analysis’, Journal of Health Economics, 25(4): 621–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P., Cookson, R.Ferguson, B. (1999), ‘Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study’, British Medical Journal, 318(7188): 916–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M. F., O'Brien, B., Stoddard, G. L.Torrance, G. W. (1997), Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dutch Committee on Choices in Health Care (1992), Choices in Health Care, Rijswijk: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs.Google Scholar
Elliot, D. (1991), Weighting for Non-Response: A Survey Researcher's Guide, London: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division.Google Scholar
Evans, M.Kelly, J. (2002), Australian Economy and Society 2001: Education, Work and Welfare, Leichardt, NSW: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
Gold, M. R., Siegal, J. E., Russell, L. B.Weinstein, M. C. (eds) (1996), Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadorn, D. C. (1996), ‘The Oregon priority-setting exercise: cost-effectiveness and the rule of rescue, revisited’, Medical Decision Making, 16(2): 117–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, J. (1985), The Value of Life, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Henke, K. D.Behrens, C. S. (1986), ‘The economic cost of illness in the Federal-Republic-of-Germany in the year 1980’, Health Policy, 6(2): 119–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurley, J. (1998), ‘Welfarism, Extra-Welfarism and Evaluative Economic Analysis in the Health Sector’, in M. L. Barer, T. E. Getzen and G. L. Stoddard (eds), Health, Health Care and Health Economics: Perspectives on Distribution, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 373–395.Google Scholar
Hurley, J. (2000), ‘An Overview of the Normative Economics of the Health Sector’, in A. J. Culyer and J. P. Newhouse (eds), Handbook of Health Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 55–118.Google Scholar
Jenni, K. E.Loewenstein, G. (1997), ‘Explaining the “identifiable victim effect” ’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3): 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, M. (1995), ‘A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care’, Health Policy, 33(1): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, M.Johansson, P.-O. (1997), ‘Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence’, Journal of Health Economics, 16(5): 589–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, M.Karlsson, G. (1997), ‘The friction cost method: a comment’, Journal of Health Economics, 16(2): 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, M.O'Conor, R. M. (1997), ‘Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective’, Health Policy, 39(3): 241–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, A. M. (1970), ‘Patients in chronic hemodialysis in the United-States: a preliminary survey’, Social Science and Medicine, 3(4): 669–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M.Presser, S. (2000), ‘Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2): 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F. F. H., Ineveld, B. M. v.Roijen, L. v. (1995), ‘The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease’, Journal of Health Economics, 14(2): 171–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liljas, B. (1998), ‘How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations’, Pharmacoeconomics, 13(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lippert-Rasmussen, K.Lauridsen, S. (2010), ‘Justice and the allocation of healthcare resources: should indirect, non-health effects count?’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 13(3): 237–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKie, J.Richardson, J. (2003), ‘The rule of rescue’, Social Science and Medicine, 56(12): 2407–2419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKie, J., Shrimpton, B., Richardson, J.Hurworth, R. (2009), ‘Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: a qualitative study’, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6(11).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooney, G. (1991), ‘Utilization as a measure of equity: weighing heat’, Journal of Health Economics, 10(4): 475–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, C. J. L.Lopez, A. D. (eds) (1996), The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Neuberger, J., Adams, D., Macmaster, P., Maidment, A.Speed, M. (1998), ‘Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians’, British Medical Journal, 317(7152): 172–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NICE (2004), Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, London.Google Scholar
Nord, E. (1993), ‘The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care’, Health Policy, 24(3): 227–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, E. (1999), Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Kuhse, H.Singer, P. (1995a), ‘Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues’, Social Science and Medicine, 41(10): 1429–1437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Kuhse, H.Singer, P. (1995b), ‘Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values?’, Health Policy, 34(2): 79–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, E., Street, A., Richardson, J., Kuhse, H.Singer, P. (1996), ‘The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care’, Health Care Analysis, 4(2): 103–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, E. O.Rogers, D. L. (1991), ‘The welfare economics of equal access’, Journal of Public Economics, 45(1): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J., Peacock, S., Iezzi, A., Day, N. A., and Hawthorne, G. (2007), Construction and Validation of The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark II Instrument. Research Paper 2007 (24), Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Riddiough, M., Sisk, J.Bell, J. (1983), ‘Influenza vaccination: cost-effectiveness and public policy’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 249(23): 3189–3195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, E.Pinto, J. L. (2000), ‘The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor?’, Health Economics, 9(7): 611–621.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siemiatycki, J.Campbell, S. (1984), ‘Nonresponse bias and early versus all responders in mail and telephone surveys’, American Journal of Epidemiology, 120(2): 291–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J.Tetlock, P. E. (1992), ‘Allocating scarce resources: a contingency model of distributive justice’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6): 491–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedish Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission (1993), No Easy Choices: The Difficulties of Health Care. Sveriges offentlige utredninger, 1993, Stockholm: The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Tancredi, L. R. (1982), ‘Social and Ethical Implications in Technology Assessment’, in B. J. McNeil and E. G. Gravalho (eds), Critical Issues in Medical Technology, Boston: Auburn House, 93–112.Google Scholar
Torrance, G. W. (1986), ‘Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal’, Journal of Health Economics, 5(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsuchiya, A., Dolan, P.Shaw, R. (2003), ‘Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence’, Social Science and Medicine, 57(4): 687–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubel, P. A. (2000), Pricing Life: Why it's Time for Health Care Rationing, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Scanlon, D.Kamlet, M. (1996), ‘Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregons cost-effectiveness list failed’, Medical Decision Making, 16(2): 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ubel, P. A., Spranca, M. D., DeKay, M. L., Hershey, J. C.Asch, D. A. (1998), ‘Public preferences for prevention versus cure: What if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure?’, Medical Decision Making, 18(2): 141–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubel, P. A., Richardson, J.Baron, J. (2002), ‘Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations’, Health Policy, 61(2): 189–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Roijen, L., Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F. F. H.van der Maas, P. J. (1995), ‘Indirect costs of disease: an international comparison’, Health Policy, 33(1): 15–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuorenkoski, L., Toiviainen, H.Hemminki, E. (2008), ‘Decision-making in priority setting for medicines – a review of empirical studies’, Health Policy, 86(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagstaff, A. (1991), ‘QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off’, Journal of Health Economics, 10(1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Garber, A. M., Lipscomb, J., Luce, B. R., Manning, W. G.Torrance, G. W. (1997), ‘Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus group’, Health Economics, 6(5): 505–510.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar