Discrepancy between Health Care Rationing at the Bedside and Policy Level

Abstract

Background. Whether doctors at the bedside level should be engaged in health care rationing is a controversial topic that has spurred much debate. From an empirical point of view, a key issue is whether there exists a behavioral difference between rationing at the bedside and policy level. Psychological theory suggests that we should indeed expect such a difference, but existing empirical evidence is inconclusive. Objective. To explore whether rationing decisions taken at the bedside level are different from rationing decisions taken at the policy level. Method. Behavioral experiment where participants (n = 573) made rationing decisions in hypothetical scenarios. Participants (medical and nonmedical students) were randomly assigned to either a bedside or a policy condition. Each scenario involved 1 decision, concerning either a life-saving medical treatment or a quality-of-life improving treatment. All scenarios were identical across the bedside and policy condition except for the level of decision making. Results. We found a discrepancy between health care rationing at policy and bedside level for scenarios involving life-saving decisions, where subjects rationed treatments to a greater extent at the policy level compared to bedside level (35.6% v. 29.3%, P = 0.001). Medical students were more likely to ration care compared to nonmedical students. Follow-up questions showed that bedside rationing was more emotionally burdensome than rationing at the policy level, indicating that psychological factors likely play a key role in explaining the observed behavioral differences. We found no difference in rationing between bedside and policy level for quality-of-life improving treatments (54.6% v. 55.7%, P = 0.507). Conclusions. Our results indicate a robust “bedside effect” in the life-saving domain of health care rationing decisions, thereby adding new insights to the understanding of the malleability of preferences related to resource allocation.

Keywords

decision making experiment health care rationing identifiability individuals and groups

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tinghög

The Art of Saying No: The Economics and Ethics of Healthcare Rationing [thesis]. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Press; 2011.

Ubel

Goold

Recognizing bedside rationing: clear cases and tough calls. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(1):74–80.

Le Grand

. Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.

Levinsky

NG.

Truth or consequences. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(13):913–5.

Smith

Hiatt

Berwick

Shared ethical principles for everybody in health care: a working draft from the Tavistock group. BMJ. 1999;318(7178):248–51.

Weinstein

MC.

Should physicians be gatekeepers of medical resources?

J Med Ethics. 2001;27(4):268–74.

Morreim

EH.

Fiscal scarcity and the inevitability of bedside budget balancing. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(5):1012–5.

Ubel

PA.

Physicians, thou shalt ration: the necessary role of bedside rationing in controlling healthcare costs. Healthc Pap. 2001;2(2):10–21.

Ubel

Arnold

RM.

The unbearable rightness of bedside rationing: physician duties in a climate of cost containment. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(17):1837–42.

10.

Redelmeier

Tversky

Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(16):1162–4.

11.

DeKay

Schley

Miller

et al . Further explorations of medical decisions for individuals and for groups. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):39–44.

12.

Kahneman

Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev. 2003;93(5):1449–75.

13.

Sloman

SA.

The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):3–22.

14.

Small

Loewenstein

Helping a victim or helping the victim: altruism and identifiability. J Risk Uncertainty. 2003;26(1):5–16.

15.

Hamilton

Sherman

SJ.

Perceiving persons and groups. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(2):336–55.

16.

Västfjäll

Slovic

Mayorga

Peters

Compassion fade: affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100115.

17.

Kogut

Ritov

The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual?

J Behav Decis Making. 2005;18(3):157–67.

18.

Kogut

Ritov

The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2005;97(2):106–16.

19.

Kogut

Ritov

The identifiable victim effect: causes and boundary conditions. In: Oppenheimer

Olivola

, eds. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity. New York: Psychology Press; 2011. p 133–45.

20.

Jenni

Loewenstein

Explaining the identifiable victim effect. J Risk Uncertainty. 1997;14(3):235–57.

21.

Wiss

Andersson

Slovic

Västfjäll

Tinghög

The influence of identifiability and singularity in moral decision making. Judgment Decis Making. 2015;10(5):492–502.

22.

Wiss

Levin

Andersson

Tinghög

Prioritizing rare diseases: psychological effects influencing medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(5):567–76.

23.

Colby

DeWitt

Chapman

GB.

Grouping promotes equality: the effect of recipient grouping on allocation of limited medical resources. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(7):1084–9.

24.

DeWitt

Equality by principle, efficiency by practice: how policy description affects allocation preference. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Fairness, Equity, and Justice. Cham: Springer Nature; 2017. p 67–91.

25.

Kesternich

Schumacher

Winter

Professional norms and physician behavior: homo oeconomicus or homo hippocraticus?

J Public Econ. 2015;131(suppl C):1–11.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB