IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/0139.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Treatment Decision-Making in Catastrophic Illness

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth E. Warner

Abstract

It is well established that the social and economic environment of medical care distinguishes its provision from that of other goods and services. While scholars have studied the influences of this idiosyncratic environment, there is relatively little empirical knowledge about how it affects decision-making in specific medical contexts. Through general conceptual discussion and consideration of a case study of leukemia chemo-therapy, this paper examines the medical decision-making process in one specific context: the response of physicians to the availability of an innovative treatment for a catastrophic illness. The manner in which the medical profession deals with serious illness is relevant to concerns as diverse as the promotion of economic efficiency and the preservation of human dignity.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth E. Warner, 1976. "Treatment Decision-Making in Catastrophic Illness," NBER Working Papers 0139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:0139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w0139.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1975. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-37, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Janvry, Alain & Schmitz, Andrew & Zilberman, David D., 1980. "Principal issues in the evaluation of public research in agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt74v9m7dh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    2. Vishwasrao, Sharmila & Bosshardt, William, 2001. "Foreign ownership and technology adoption: evidence from Indian firms," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 367-387, August.
    3. Michael Reksulak & William F. Shughart & Robert D. Tollison, 2008. "Innovation and the opportunity cost of monopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 619-627.
    4. B. Zorina Khan, 1999. "Legal Monopoly: Patents and Antitrust Litigation in U.S. Manufacturing, 1970-1998," NBER Working Papers 7068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Kurt Brännäs & Uno Zackrisson, 1992. "On forecasting of innovations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 95-112, February.
    7. C. Timothy Koeller, 2005. "Technological opportunity and the relationship between innovation output and market structure," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 209-222.
    8. Dawid, Herbert & Riedel, Frank & Steg, Jan-Henrik & Wen, Xingang, 2024. "Cash-constrained R&D Investment," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 699, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    9. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    10. Wang, Kunlun & Zheng, Leven J. & Lin, Boqiang, 2024. "Demand-side incentives, competition, and firms’ innovative activities: Evidence from automobile industry in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Wilfred Dolfsma & Gerben Velde, 2014. "Industry innovativeness, firm size, and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Mark III?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 713-736, September.
    12. Ricardo AGUADO & Jabier MARTINEZ & Miguel Angel LARRINAGA, 2011. "REGIONAL R&D&i PRODUCTIVITY IN EUROPE. IDENTIFYING REGIONAL TYPOLOGIES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS," ERSA conference papers ersa10p412, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Feng, Ping & Ke, Shanzi, 2016. "Self-selection and performance of R&D input of heterogeneous firms: Evidence from China's manufacturing industries," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 181-195.
    14. Koski, Heli, 2000. "Feedback Mechanisms in the Evolution of Networks: The Installed User Base and Innovation in the Communications Sector," Discussion Papers 725, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    15. Erik Brouwer & Tom Poot & Kees Montfort, 2008. "The Innovation Threshold," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 45-71, March.
    16. Seev Hirsch & Ilan Bijaoui, 1985. "R&D intensity and export performance: A micro view," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 121(2), pages 238-251, June.
    17. Alexander Coad & Nicola Grassano, 2016. "Disentangling the processes of firm growth and R&D investment," JRC Research Reports JRC103175, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Cátia Felisberto, 2013. "Liberalisation, competition and innovation in the postal sector," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1407-1434, June.
    19. Peters, Bettina & Lööf, Hans & Janz, Norbert, 2003. "Firm Level Innovation and Productivity: Is there a Common Story Across Countries?," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-26, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Richard A. Jensen, 1980. "A Duopoly Model of the Adoption of an Innovation of Uncertainty Profitability," Discussion Papers 434, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.

    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:nbr:nberwo:0139. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.