Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2413-2424 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Health expectations |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2015 |
Abstract
Background: The problem of resource scarcity has led to an on-going debate about priority setting in the health-care system. Prioritization via the economic-based cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), for example, is controversial and has many advocates as well as opponents. Hence, the aim of our research is to analyse the fairness consideration of the CER approach in comparison with other prioritization approaches and to investigate whether these preferences depend on the field of study. Methods: We developed and tested a unique questionnaire. Between October 2011 and January 2012, freshmen and advanced university students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy and religion in Germany were asked to choose among four prioritization approaches (CER, minimum health, random selection and age) using a dichotomous choice technique. The data were analysed by descriptive and microeconometric regression techniques. Results: Data on 913 students were included in the study. A majority of the students prioritized cost-effectiveness second after minimum health. Advanced economics students preferred the CER approach significantly more than did incoming economics students. The attitudes of the advanced philosophy/religion students towards the CER were significantly more negative compared with the respective freshmen. Further, gender had a strong, significant impact on attitudes: women chose the CER less often than men did (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that attitudes presented by opinion leaders in the investigated fields of study seem to be in line with the perceptions of the respective fields' advanced students. Because of these differences, the debate on how to deal with scarce resources may remain complicated.
Keywords
- Attitude, Empirical analysis, Germany, Health care, Priority setting
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Health expectations, Vol. 18, No. 6, 12.2015, p. 2413-2424.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Who prefers the 'cost-effectiveness ratio' prioritization approach in health-care decisions?
T2 - Results of an empirical analysis
AU - Damm, Kathrin
AU - Prenzler, Anne
AU - Zuchandke, Andy
PY - 2015/12
Y1 - 2015/12
N2 - Background: The problem of resource scarcity has led to an on-going debate about priority setting in the health-care system. Prioritization via the economic-based cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), for example, is controversial and has many advocates as well as opponents. Hence, the aim of our research is to analyse the fairness consideration of the CER approach in comparison with other prioritization approaches and to investigate whether these preferences depend on the field of study. Methods: We developed and tested a unique questionnaire. Between October 2011 and January 2012, freshmen and advanced university students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy and religion in Germany were asked to choose among four prioritization approaches (CER, minimum health, random selection and age) using a dichotomous choice technique. The data were analysed by descriptive and microeconometric regression techniques. Results: Data on 913 students were included in the study. A majority of the students prioritized cost-effectiveness second after minimum health. Advanced economics students preferred the CER approach significantly more than did incoming economics students. The attitudes of the advanced philosophy/religion students towards the CER were significantly more negative compared with the respective freshmen. Further, gender had a strong, significant impact on attitudes: women chose the CER less often than men did (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that attitudes presented by opinion leaders in the investigated fields of study seem to be in line with the perceptions of the respective fields' advanced students. Because of these differences, the debate on how to deal with scarce resources may remain complicated.
AB - Background: The problem of resource scarcity has led to an on-going debate about priority setting in the health-care system. Prioritization via the economic-based cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), for example, is controversial and has many advocates as well as opponents. Hence, the aim of our research is to analyse the fairness consideration of the CER approach in comparison with other prioritization approaches and to investigate whether these preferences depend on the field of study. Methods: We developed and tested a unique questionnaire. Between October 2011 and January 2012, freshmen and advanced university students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy and religion in Germany were asked to choose among four prioritization approaches (CER, minimum health, random selection and age) using a dichotomous choice technique. The data were analysed by descriptive and microeconometric regression techniques. Results: Data on 913 students were included in the study. A majority of the students prioritized cost-effectiveness second after minimum health. Advanced economics students preferred the CER approach significantly more than did incoming economics students. The attitudes of the advanced philosophy/religion students towards the CER were significantly more negative compared with the respective freshmen. Further, gender had a strong, significant impact on attitudes: women chose the CER less often than men did (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that attitudes presented by opinion leaders in the investigated fields of study seem to be in line with the perceptions of the respective fields' advanced students. Because of these differences, the debate on how to deal with scarce resources may remain complicated.
KW - Attitude
KW - Empirical analysis
KW - Germany
KW - Health care
KW - Priority setting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955169740&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/hex.12209
DO - 10.1111/hex.12209
M3 - Article
C2 - 24905558
AN - SCOPUS:84955169740
VL - 18
SP - 2413
EP - 2424
JO - Health expectations
JF - Health expectations
SN - 1369-6513
IS - 6
ER -