University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Melbourne Medical School Collected Works
  • Melbourne Medical School Collected Works - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Melbourne Medical School Collected Works
  • Melbourne Medical School Collected Works - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Cost-equivalence and Pluralism in Publicly-funded Health-care Systems

    Thumbnail
    Download
    published version (495.3Kb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Web of Science
    Altmetric
    4
    5
    Author
    Wilkinson, D; Savulescu, J
    Date
    2018-12-01
    Source Title
    Health Care Analysis
    Publisher
    SPRINGER
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Savulescu, Julian
    Affiliation
    Melbourne Medical School
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Wilkinson, D. & Savulescu, J. (2018). Cost-equivalence and Pluralism in Publicly-funded Health-care Systems. HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 26 (4), pp.287-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-016-0337-z.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/257297
    DOI
    10.1007/s10728-016-0337-z
    Abstract
    Clinical guidelines summarise available evidence on medical treatment, and provide recommendations about the most effective and cost-effective options for patients with a given condition. However, sometimes patients do not desire the best available treatment. Should doctors in a publicly-funded healthcare system ever provide sub-optimal medical treatment? On one view, it would be wrong to do so, since this would violate the ethical principle of beneficence, and predictably lead to harm for patients. It would also, potentially, be a misuse of finite health resources. In this paper, we argue in favour of permitting sub-optimal choices on the basis of value pluralism, uncertainty, patient autonomy and responsibility. There are diverse views about how to evaluate treatment options, and patients' right to self-determination and taking responsibility for their own lives should be respected. We introduce the concept of cost-equivalence (CE), as a way of defining the boundaries of permissible pluralism in publicly-funded healthcare systems. As well as providing the most effective, available treatment for a given condition, publicly-funded healthcare systems should provide reasonable suboptimal medical treatments that are equivalent in cost to (or cheaper than) the optimal treatment. We identify four forms of cost-equivalence, and assess the implications of CE for decision-making. We evaluate and reject counterarguments to CE. Finally, we assess the relevance of CE for other treatment decisions including requests for potentially superior treatment.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [45689]
    • Melbourne Medical School Collected Works - Research Publications [451]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors