Abstract
This paper argues that cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector introduces a discrimination risk that has thus far been underappreciated and outlines some approaches one can take toward this. It is argued that appropriate standards used in cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector fail to always fully determine an optimal option, which entails that cost-effectiveness analysis often leaves decision makers with large sets of permissible options. Larger sets of permissible options increase the role of decision makers’ biases, whims, and prejudices, which means that the discrimination risk increases. Two ways of mitigating this are identified: tinkering with standards used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and outlining anti-discrimination guidelines for decision makers.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 163–173 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics |
Volume | 32 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2023 |
Externally published | Yes |
Subject classification (UKÄ)
- Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
- Economics
- Medical Ethics
Free keywords
- QALY
- discrimination
- cost-effectiveness
- healthcare rationing