SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The age-rationing debate of fifteen years ago will inevitably reemerge as health care costs escalate. All age-rationing proposals should be judged in light of the current system of rationing health care by price in the U.S., and the resulting pattern of excess and deprivation. Age-rationing should be rejected as public policy, but recognized as a personal virtue of stewardship among the elderly.
This study tested Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) theory which predicts that cognitive beliefs, not the stimulus situation, generate human emotions. According to RET, emotions created by rational beliefs are adaptive, while irrational beliefs result in an unadaptive anxiety level. Results demonstrated that at high levels of problem relevance there was (1) a significantly greater GSR in direct response to the stimulus situation, and also to irrational statements, than to rational and control statements, and (2) no significant difference between rational and neutral control statements. The authors argue that these results are more parsimoniously explained by conditioning theory than by RET theory.
In an attempt to make rationing of elective surgery in the publicly funded health system more explicit, New Zealand has developed a booking system for surgery using clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC). This paper is based on research undertaken to evaluate the use of CPAC. To explore whether the goals of explicit rationing were being met 69 interviews were undertaken with policy advisors, administrators and clinicians in six localities throughout New Zealand. The aims of reforming policy for access to elective surgery included improving equity, providing clarity for patients, and achieving a paradigm shift by relating likely benefit from surgery to the available resources. The research suggests that there have been changes in the way in which patients access elective surgery and that in many ways rationing has become more explicit. However, there is also some resistance to the use of CPAC, in part due to confusion over whether the tools are decision-aids or protocols, what role the tools play in achieving equity and differences between financial thresholds for access to surgery and clinical thresholds for benefit from surgery. For many surgical specialties implicit rationing will continue to play a major part in determining access to surgery unless validated and reliable CPAC tools can be developed.
Rationing involves a failure to offer care, or the denial of care, from which patients would benefit. Rationing involves definition of efficiency (benefit) and equity (fairness) allocation criteria and a recognition of a trade-off between the two. However, accountability for rationing choices also requires careful governance of the agents of society, doctors, who judge the health needs of competing patients. An integrated rationing system requires management of patient access criteria, the knowledge base which informs practice and clinical practices.
This small-scale study develops a new methodology for investigating which ethical principles of health care rationing the public support after discussion and deliberation. In ten groups of about six people, members of the public are asked to discuss a hypothetical rationing choice, concerning four identified patients who are described in general terms but without detailed information. It is explained to respondents that the purpose of the exercise is to find out what general ethical principles they support. Discussions are chaired by an academic specialising in health policy, whose role is to encourage debate but not actively to participate. On the basis of an innovative qualitative data analysis, which translates what people say into ethical principles identified in the theoretical literature, the public appear to support three main rationing principles: (1) a broad 'rule of rescue' that gives priority to those in immediate need, (2) health maximisation and (3) equalisation of lifetime health. To our knowledge, this pluralistic viewpoint on rationing has never been developed into a coherent theoretical position, nor into a quantifiable model that health care managers can use for guidance.
While many studies have reviewed the issues involved in rationing and priority setting within health care services, few studies have comprehensively analysed the views and attitudes of a significant stakeholder in the debate - the public. The aims of this paper are to discuss the issues involved in involving the public in rationing and priority setting decision-making; and to analyse data pertaining to citizen's attitudes towards rationing and priority setting. The data analysed were taken from the 1998 Eurobarometer Survey, with specific questions pertaining to rationing and priority setting asked in six countries within the European Union: Germany; France; Italy; the Netherlands; Britain and Sweden. The review of previous studies and the analysis of the Eurobarometer data, focus on issues relating to funding for health care; the need to set limits in health coverage; the role of stakeholders in setting priorities; and the use of age, and other factors, as a criteria for setting priorities.
AIMS: The aim of this paper is to analyse critically the use of age as a criterion to ration scarce life-sustaining resources within the intensive care environment. BACKGROUND: Insufficient funding to meet the escalating costs of health care has resulted in a scarcity of life-sustaining resources. Although an explicit policy of rationing by age within the United Kingdom (UK) has not been formulated, decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment are already being made on the basis of patients' biological age rather than medical need. METHOD: Three contrasting arguments are analysed: the 'equal worth', 'fair innings' and 'prudential lifespan' arguments. CONCLUSIONS: In certain circumstances rationing by age is both morally permissible and justified. However, the capacity to benefit from treatment has to be considered whatever the age of the individual and any measure of benefit needs to take a broad range of medical, ethical and economic factors into account. If age is to be used, as a criterion to ration limited resources explicit, national guidelines need to be developed and applied consistently to ensure that arbitrary differences in the treatment older people receive does not occur.
In an article titled, "Who Shall Live When Not All Can?", James Childress proposes a system for allocating scarce lifesaving medical resources based on random selection procedures. Childress writes of random selection procedures, [They] "cannot be dismissed as a 'non-rational' and 'non-human' ...without an inquiry into the reasons, including human values which might justify it." My thesis is that once we concentrate on determining the rationality of random selection procedures, we will see that Childress's claim that we cannot dismiss such procedures as 'non-rational' is open to question. My claim will be that while both random selection and social worth procedures are rationally defensible systems, random selection procedures easily lead to specific choices that are objectively irrational, apart from the limited perspective of the random selection process itself.
In any system of third party payment for health care, such care will be rationed. A clear policy agenda will be focused upon three questions: Who should ration? What mechanisms should exist for making and implementing rationing decisions? What are the criteria by which rationing should occur?
Notes the problem of rising health care costs in the USA. Considers a highly controversial solution to this problem, which is to consider health care as a scarce resource and to ration access to it. Whether rationing is done by age, ability to pay, or a cost-benefit analysis, the very concept contradicts the US belief in the right to health care. Other industrialized countries currently ration health care through a National Health Insurance Plan. Points out that, in the USA, individual states are beginning to consider health care rationing to combat shrinking budgets and increasing demand for services.
Geriatricians are faced with increasing pressure from insurers and the public to control costs. At the same time, subspecialist colleagues, patients, and the courts often demand ever more costly high-technology interventions. This conflict will only intensify given the sustained increase in the percentage of GNP spent on medical care. A number of prominent biomedical ethicists and others have explored rationing of medical care services as one response to these concerns. This is the second in a series of articles in the Journal in response to the Oregon Health Decisions Initiative and is designed to provide (1) a brief ethical perspective on rationing and allocation; (2) an analysis of our present, largely implicit, approach to rationing and allocation; and (3) some suggestions that might move the United States closer to a more coherent and reasonable means of allocating and rationing health care.
This paper compares and contrasts three different substantive (as opposed to procedural) principles of justice for making health care priority-setting or "rationing" decisions: need principles, maximising principles and egalitarian principles. The principles are compared by tracing out their implications for a hypothetical rationing decision involving four identified patients. This decision has been the subject of an empirical study of public opinion based on small-group discussions, which found that the public seem to support a pluralistic combination of all three kinds of rationing principle. In conclusion, it is suggested that there is room for further work by philosophers and others on the development of a coherent and pluralistic theory of health care rationing which accords with public opinions.
Cost-containment in oncology is a moral issue. While economists use the word "rationing" to describe all limitations on resource utilization that result from human choice, the ordinary language distinction between allocation and rationing is morally meaningful and can help oncologists to determine their proper moral role in cost-containment. It is argued that oncologists should not be required to ration at the bedside, nor should they be given financial incentives to practice frugally, nor should they be subjected to a variety of bureaucratic mechanisms to control costs indirectly. In addition, it is argued that the fact that treatments have a price does not logically imply that patients have a price. Cost-effectiveness analysis is often suggested as a means of deciding how best to allocate resources, but some of its many ethical limitations are discussed. The alternative is an open, public, participatory process about how to ration care, abandoning the formulaic pretenses of cost-effectiveness analysis, but with a commitment to reason, good will, and common sense. Oncologists would then be free to advocate for their patients within the constraints imposed by this public process.
This article examines the theoretical and practical logics of community engagement exercises in health care rationing. To evaluate such exercises in Canada, it is necessary to compare suspected rationing exercises (such as those in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan) with clear examples of rationing. The Oregon Medicaid reform process is considered an important example of transparent and community-level rationing from which Canadian executive-driven governments can learn a few valuable lessons. While the Oregon experiment seems to have been a (qualified) success, in the Canadian context, formal citizen participation in decision making might be incompatible with social rights and present an incongruous and antagonistic pairing of executive and popular sources of authority.
Rationing health care in publicly funded health care systems is becoming more challenging because of the growing gap between the possibility of effective medical intervention and limited resources. This poses both an economic challenge and a political puzzle. On the basis of experience in those systems that have adopted a systematic approach to rationing, it can be suggested that the dilemmas involved should be addressed by strengthening both the information base to support decisions and the institutional framework in which decisions are taken. The contribution both of experts and of lay people is needed to inform decision-making, and the processes adopted need to allow for this as well as being transparent and accountable. In practice, rationing is likely to combine explicit and implicit decision-making and to result in the exclusion of services at the margins and the development of guidelines in the mainstream. The politics of rationing may favour muddling through and the evasion of responsibility but this will be difficult to sustain in an environment in which public awareness of decision-making in health care is growing.
Society should not accept the inevitability of rationing medical resources, at least not in the short term. Because of the high degree of waste and duplication that characterize the Canadian and, even more, the American healthcare system, the invitation to focus on rationing procedures known to be useful is likely to divert attention from the need to eliminate waste. If and when extensive rationing becomes necessary, however, Ubel's proposal that we adopt bedside rationing by physicians ought nevertheless to be rejected because it is ethically objectionable. Such a scheme would violate the bond of trust between doctor and patient, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. Since most physicians lack both the time and the expertise to perform cost-benefit calculations properly, Ubel's scheme would be inefficient as well as unethical. There is a better alternative.
The present study investigated the effects on self-concept of Rational-Emotive Therapy and auditory subliminal stimulation (separately and in combination) on 141 undergraduate students with self-concept problems. They were randomly assigned to one of four groups receiving either Rational-Emotive Therapy, subliminal stimulation, both, or a placebo treatment. Rational-Emotive Therapy significantly improved scores on all the dependent measures (cognition, self-concept, self-esteem, anxiety), except for behavior. Results for the subliminal stimulation group were similar to those of the placebo treatment except for a significant self-concept improvement and a decline in self-concept related irrational cognitions. The combined treatment yielded results similar to those of Rational-Emotive Therapy, with tentative indications of continued improvement in irrational cognitions and self-concept from posttest to follow-up.
It is no longer possible or ethically acceptable to deny that rationing occurs in medical practice. We ration already by using "contraindications to treatment". There are no rationing criteria that are universally ethically acceptable. We need ways to establish community preferences if we are to develop responsible methods of rationing healthcare services.