Papers

Health care rationing: the public's debate

^a Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education (CHIME), University College London Medical School, Whittington Hospital, London N19 5NF

Abstract

Objective: To elicit the views of a large nationally representative sample of adults on priorities for health services.
Design: An interview survey based on a random sample of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain taken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Subjects: The response rate to the survey was 75%, and the total number of adults interviewed was 2005.
Main outcome measures: A priority ranking exercise of health services supplemented with attitude questions about priorities, who should set priorities, and budget allocation.
Results: The results of the main priority ranking exercise of 12 health services showed that the highest priority (rank 1) was accorded to "treatments for children with life threatening illness," the next highest priority (rank 2) was accorded to "special care and pain relief for people who are dying." The lowest priorities (11 and 12) were given to "treatment for infertility" and "treatment for people aged 75 and over with life threatening illness." Most respondents thought that surveys like this one should be used in the planning of health services.
Conclusions: The public prioritise treatments specifically for younger rather than older people. There is some public support for people with self inflicted conditions (for example, through tobacco smoking) receiving lower priority for care, which raises ethical issues.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Rationing in the NHS

Sue Hay
BMJ 1996 312: 1605. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Ramsay, S. E., Morris, R. W., Papacosta, O., Lennon, L. T., Thomas, M. C., Whincup, P. H. (2005). Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in older British men: extent of inequalities before and after implementation of the National Service Framework. J Public Health (Oxf) 27: 338-343 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jagsi, R., DeLaney, T. F., Donelan, K., Tarbell, N. J. (2004). Real-Time Rationing of Scarce Resources: The Northeast Proton Therapy Center Experience. JCO 22: 2246-2250 [Full text]  
• Bowling, A, Bond, M, McKee, D, McClay, M, Banning, A P, Dudley, N, Elder, A, Martin, A, Blackman, I (2001). Equity in access to exercise tolerance testing, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass grafting by age, sex and clinical indications. Heart 85: 680-686 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cookson, R., Dolan, P., Ford, J., Cooke, L., Torgerson, D., Gosden, T. (2000). Priority setting in health care. BMJ 321: 954-954 [Full text]  
• Anderson, W., Florin, D. (2000). Consulting the public about the NHS. BMJ 320: 1553-1554 [Full text]  
• Bond, M., Bowling, A., Abery, A., McClay, M., Dickinson, E. (2000). Evaluation of outreach clinics held by specialists in general practice in England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 54: 149-156 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bowling, A. (1999). Ageism in cardiology. BMJ 319: 1353-1355 [Full text]  
• Seddon, M E, French, J K, Amos, D J, Ramanathan, K, McLaughlin, S C, White, H D (1999). Waiting times and prioritisation for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand. Heart 81: 586-592 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Dolan, P., Cookson, R., Ferguson, B. (1999). Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 318: 916-919 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hamel, M. B., Teno, J. M., Goldman, L., Lynn, J., Davis, R. B., Galanos, A. N., Desbiens, N., Connors, A. F. Jr., Wenger, N., Phillips, R. S., for the SUPPORT Investigators, (1999). Patient Age and Decisions To Withhold Life-Sustaining Treatments from Seriously Ill, Hospitalized Adults. ANN INTERN MED 130: 116-125 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Stronks, K., Strijbis, A.-M., Wendte, J. F, Gunning-Schepers, L. J (1997). Who should decide? Qualitative analysis of panel data from public, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurers on priorities in health care. BMJ 315: 92-96 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Marshall, T., St Leger, M. F., Woodroffe, C., Bowling, A. (1997). Rationing health care. BMJ 314: 1901-1901 [Full text]  
• Harrison, S. (1997). The case against. BMJ 314: 970-970 [Full text]  
• Maynard, A. (1996). Rationing health care. BMJ 313: 1499-1499 [Full text]  
• Harvey, I. (1996). Commentary: Reach beyond metaphor to assess value. BMJ 313: 154-154 [Full text]  
• Smith, R. (1996). Rationing health care: moving the debate forward. BMJ 312: 1553-1554 [Full text]  
• Lenaghan, J., New, B., Mitchell, E. (1996). Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?. BMJ 312: 1591-1593 [Full text]  
• Hay, S. (1996). Rationing in the NHS. BMJ 312: 1605-1605 [Full text]