Age-Based Rationing in the Allocation of Health Care
Ian Dey, Neil Fraser
Abstract
Ian Dey, Neil Fraser
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article seeks to review debates about age-based rationing in health care. METHODS: The article identifies four different levels (or types) of decision-making in health resources allocation--societal, strategic, programmatic, and clinical--and assesses how the issues of rationing vary in relation to each level. RESULTS: The article concludes that rationing is least defensible at the clinical level, where it is also most covert. The role of rationing at other levels is more defensible when based on grounds of cost-effectiveness rather than equity. The article emphasizes the importance of fairness in health allocation and suggests that efficiency criteria need to be considered in that context. DISCUSSION: The article suggests that rationing is most problematic where it is least overt. This raises further questions about how rationing can be made more explicit at different levels of decision making.
OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
OBJECTIVES: This article seeks to review debates about age-based rationing in health care. METHODS: The article identifies four different levels (or types) of decision-making in health resources allocation--societal, strategic, programmatic, and clinical--and assesses how the issues of rationing vary in relation to each level. RESULTS: The article concludes that rationing is least defensible at the clinical level, where it is also most covert. The role of rationing at other levels is more defensible when based on grounds of cost-effectiveness rather than equity. The article emphasizes the importance of fairness in health allocation and suggests that efficiency criteria need to be considered in that context. DISCUSSION: The article suggests that rationing is most problematic where it is least overt. This raises further questions about how rationing can be made more explicit at different levels of decision making.
Key concepts: Rationing, Health care rationing, Equity (law), Covert, Health care, Context (archaeology), Public economics, Actuarial science