IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i5p369-378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Response to Cost-Quality Tradeoffs in Clinical Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Catherine Beach
  • David A. Asch
  • Christopher Jepson
  • John C. Hershey
  • Tara Mohr
  • Stacey McMorrow
  • Peter A. Ubel

Abstract

Purpose. To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions. Methods. The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey de-scribing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement(kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive. Results. Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited. Conclusions. Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Catherine Beach & David A. Asch & Christopher Jepson & John C. Hershey & Tara Mohr & Stacey McMorrow & Peter A. Ubel, 2003. "Public Response to Cost-Quality Tradeoffs in Clinical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(5), pages 369-378, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:5:p:369-378
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03256882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03256882
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03256882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Cookson, Richard, 2000. "A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 19-30, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    2. Francis Asenso‐Boadi & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2008. "Exploring differences in empirical time preference rates for health: an application of meta‐regression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 235-248, February.
    3. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    4. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    6. Yisha Xiang & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "A medical resource allocation model for serving emergency victims with deteriorating health conditions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 177-196, January.
    7. Carlota Quintal, 2009. "Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 121-136, June.
    8. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.
    9. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    10. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    11. Patten, San & Mitton, Craig & Donaldson, Cam, 2006. "Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1121-1134, September.
    12. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    13. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    14. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    16. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2018. "Does a patient's health potential affect the social valuation of health services?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    17. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    18. Olsen, Jan Abel, 2000. "A note on eliciting distributive preferences for health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 541-550, July.
    19. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.
    20. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:5:p:369-378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.