Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Who should be saved when health resources are limited? Although bioethicists and policymakers continue to debate which metric should be used to evaluate health interventions, public policy is also subject to public opinion. We investigated how the public values life when evaluating vaccine-allocation policies during a flu epidemic. We found that people’s ratings of the acceptability of policies were dramatically influenced by question framing. When policies were described in terms of lives saved, people judged them on the basis of the number of life years gained. In contrast, when the policies were described in terms of lives lost, people considered the age of the policy’s beneficiaries, taking into account the number of years lived to prioritize young targets for the health intervention. In addition, young targets were judged as more valuable in general, but young participants valued young targets even more than older participants did.

Keywords

framing decision making policy making judgment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arias

(2007). United States life tables, 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 56(9). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Busschbach

J.J.

Hessing

D.J.

de Charro

F.T.

(1993). The utility of health at different stages in life: A quantitative approach. Social Science and Medicine, 37, 153–158.

Chasteen

A.L.

Madey

S.F.

(2003). Belief in a just world and the perceived injustice of dying young or old. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 47, 315–328.

Cropper

M.L.

Aydede

S.K.

Portney

P.R.

(1994). Preferences for life saving programs: How the public discount time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 243–256.

Emanuel

E.J.

Wertheimer

(2006). Public health: Who should get influenza vaccine when not all can? Science, 312, 854–855.

Evans

J.G.

(1997). Rationing health care by age: The case against. British Medical Journal, 314, 822–825.

Galvani

A.P.

Medlock

Chapman

G.B.

(2006). The ethics of influenza vaccination [Letter to the editor]. Science, 313, 758–759.

Johannesson

Johansson

P.O.

(1997). Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. Journal of Health Economics, 16, 589–599.

Kane

R.L.

Kane

R.A.

(2005). Ageism in healthcare and long-term care. Generations, 29, 49–54.

10.

Kern

M.C.

Chugh

(2009). Bounded ethicality: The perils of loss framing. Psychological Science, 20, 378–384.

11.

Lewis

P.A.

Chamy

(1989). Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can’t treat both? Journal of Medical Ethics, 15, 28–32.

12.

Pliskin

Shepard

Weinstein

(1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 1, 206–224.

13.

Ratcliffe

(2000). Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Journal of Health Economics, 9, 137–148.

14.

Rodriguez

Pinto

J.L.

(2000). The social value of health programmes: Is age a relevant factor? Journal of Health Economics, 9, 611–621.

15.

Tsuchiya

Dolan

Shaw

(2000). Measuring people’s preferences regarding ageism in health: Some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 687–696.

16.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

17.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Long term outcome goals. In FY 2006 budget summary and budget in brief. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/2006FDABudgetSummary/ucm121773.htm

18.

Williams

(1997a). Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the “fair innings” argument. Health Economics, 6,117–132.

19.

Williams

(1997b). Rationing health care by age: The case for. British Medical Journal, 314, 820–822.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.01 MB