• 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:

    Collections: Iron, How Did They Make It? Part I, Mining

    This week we are starting a four-part look at pre-modern iron and steel production. As with our series on farming, we are going to follow the train of iron production from the mine to a finished object, be that a tool, a piece of armor, a simple nail, a w…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry September 18, 2020

    Learning Game

    I came up with this game. In the game one person thinks of something and then gives the other person a clue. And the other person writes a guess down on a blackboard or a piece of paper. Or really anything you have that's laying around that's av…

    via Lily Wise's Blog Posts September 17, 2020

    Hong Kong Construction Costs

    I think we have found the #2 city in urban rail construction costs, behind only New York. This is Hong Kong, setting a world record for the most expensive urban el and encroaching on Singapore for most expensive non-New York subway. As we look for more da…

    via Pedestrian Observations September 16, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact