::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact

Should we treat inexpensive diseases first?

August 11th, 2010
politics, giving, health  [html]
How would you answer this question:

Imagine two illnesses X and Y. People get them through no fault of their own. The illnesses are equally serious and leave the patients in a state of severe disability if untreated. They both occur in about 100 people per year in your country. You yourself are equally likely to get either of them.

A basic care is offered to everybody who gets either of the illnesses. Beyond this basic care, there are treatments available for both illnesses that are equally effective and will improve the patients' functioning considerably. The treatment costs, however, depend on the illness:

Illness X: $ 20,000 per patient
Illness Y: $ 100,000 per patient
Imagine that society decides to allocate 1 million dollars per year to these treatments. This is not enough to treat all patients, so a rule must be decided as to who should have priority. Two different rules are suggested.

Rule A would be to spend all the money on people with illness X. This would lead to the following numbers of people being treated per year:
X: 50
Y: 0
Sum: 50
Rule B would 'first come, first serve'. On average, this will would lead to the following numbers of people being treated per year.
X: 10
Y: 8
Sum: 18
Advocates of rule A argue that it would allow more people to be treated and thus all in all lead to less disability and suffering in the population. It would also give each of us a better chance of actually benefiting one day, since more people would be treated and the illnesses are equally common.

Advocates of rule B argue that it is unfair to discriminate against those who happen to get a high cost illness through no fault of their own. They argue that this concern for fairness should override the concern for treating as many as possible. The two groups should therefore be treated on a first come, first serve basis, even though fewer people would then be treated.

You are yourself a member of the society in which one of these rules would apply. Which of them would you vote for? Take a look a look at this summary and think carefully before you answer.
This question was asked in a 1995 study in Australia, Who Cares About Cost? Does Economic Analysis Impose Or Reflect Social Values. Out of 119 people surveyed, 82 or 69% prefered rule B, the first come first served choice. I don't understand this at all. Is there someone who would choose rule B that would be interested in explaining their position to me?

Comment via: facebook

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Europe and Asia are not Liberal or Conservative America

One frustrating thing coming from telling Americans to be more like democratic Asia, or even more like Europe, is that it is a) a political claim, that b) doesn’t neatly map onto partisanship or even intra-partisan political factions. Demographically, it …

via Pedestrian Observations March 29, 2020

Massachusetts should shut down immediately

We’ve been running 30x fewer tests than other states, and have been extremely tardy in responding to the Biogen outbreak.

via benkuhn.net March 15, 2020

Several grumpy opinions about remote work at Tailscale

As a "fully remote work" company, we had to make some choices about the technologies we use to work together and stay in touch. We decided early on - about the time we realized all three cofounders live in different cities - that we were going to…

via apenwarr March 11, 2020

more     (via openring)

More Posts:


  ::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact