2000•Journal of Aging and HealthRequires access

Age-Based Rationing in the Allocation of Health Care

Ian Dey, Neil Fraser

Open publisher page 26 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Rationing, Health care rationing, Equity (law), Covert, Health care, Context (archaeology), Public economics, Actuarial science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Age-Based Rationing in the Allocation of Health Care — Research Paper | ScholarLens