• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Should we treat inexpensive diseases first?

    August 11th, 2010
    giving, health, politics  [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:

    Austerity is Inefficient

    Working on an emergency timetable for regional rail has made it clear how an environment of austerity requires tradeoffs that reduce efficiency. I already talked about how the Swiss electronics before concrete slogan is not about not spending money but ab…

    via Pedestrian Observations February 27, 2021

    Fireside Friday, February 26, 2021

    Fireside this week, but next week we are diving into our long awaited series on pre-modern textile production, though we will be particularly focused on the most important clothing fibers in the Mediterranean world, wool and linen (rather than, say, silk …

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry February 26, 2021

    The Troubling Ethics of Writing (A Speech from Ancient Sumer)

    (Translated from a transcript of an ancient Sumerian speech by Uruk's most well-respected Scriptological Ethicist) Writing is a profoundly dangerous technology: Access to writing was initially, and still remains, uneven. What's worse, the rich are m…

    via BLOG - Cullen O'Keefe February 15, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact