A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions

Who should be given priority for public funding?

BACKGROUND

This study explored if Koreans consider the type of disease, rarity, and availability of alternative treatments as priority criteria in limited healthcare resource allocation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted with a representative sample of 3,482 Korean adults. Participants were divided into six cohorts, differing in terms of the disease being compared and the cost and benefits of the treatments. Each cohort was asked two questions: 1) How to allocate a fixed budget into each of the two groups (cancer vs non-cancer, rare vs common, no other treatments available vs several treatments available), all else being equal; 2) allocation choices when conditions of two groups differed. The McNemar test was used to assess changes in responses between the two questions.

RESULTS

Under the control condition, the majority chose to treat an even number of patients with cancer and non-cancer diseases, and preferred to treat common diseases and those with no alternative treatments. However, when the treatment effects or costs of two comparison groups changed, choice shifted toward more effective or less costly treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While Koreans generally support the principle of health maximization, they also believe that priority should be given to diseases that previously did not have any treatments. However, no priority was given to cancer or rare diseases.

Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off

BACKGROUND

Multiple principles are relevant in priority setting, two of which are often considered particularly important. According to the greater benefit principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention with the greater health benefit. This principle is intimately linked to the goal of health maximization and standard cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). According to the worse off principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention benefiting those initially worse off. This principle is often linked to an idea of equity. Together, the two principles accord with prioritarianism; a view which can motivate non-standard CEA. Crucial for the actual application of prioritarianism is the trade-off between the two principles, and this trade-off has received scant attention when the worse off are specified in terms of lifetime health. This paper sheds light on that specific trade-off and on the public support for prioritarianism by providing fresh empirical evidence and by clarifying the close links between the findings and normative theory.

METHODS

A new, self-administered, computer-based questionnaire was used, to which 96 students in Norway responded. How respondents wanted to balance quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained against benefiting those with few lifetime QALYs was quantified for a range of different cases.

RESULTS

Respondents supported both principles and were willing to make trade-offs in a particular way. In the baseline case, the median response valued a QALY 3.3 and 2.5 times more when benefiting someone with lifetime QALYs of 10 and 25 rather than 70. Average responses harbored fundamental disagreements and varied modestly across distributional settings.

CONCLUSION

In the specific context of lifetime health, the findings underscore the insufficiency of pure QALY maximization and explicate how people make trade-offs in a way that can help operationalize lifetime prioritarianism and non-standard CEA. Seen through the lens of normative theory, the findings highlight key challenges for prioritarianism applied to priority setting.