RSS

Tag Archives: smoking

#HEJC for 06/05/2013

This month’s meeting will take place Monday 6th May, at 5pm London time. That’ll be 11am in New Orleans and 7pm in Athens. Join the Facebook event here. We’ll also hold an antipodal meeting 12 hours later on Tuesday 7th May, at 5am London time. That’ll be midday in Kuala Lumpur and 1pm in Tokyo. Join the Facebook event here. For more information about the Health Economics Twitter Journal Club and how to take part, click here.

The paper for discussion this month is a working paper published in the Munich Personal RePEc Archive. The authors are Lydia Lawless, Rodolfo Nayga and Andreas DrichoutisThe title of the paper is:

“Time preference and health behaviour: A review”

Following the meeting, a transcript of the discussion can be downloaded here.

Links to the article

Direct: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45382

RePEc: http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/45382.html

Other: tbc

Summary of the paper

Time preferences affect individuals’ consumption decisions. Our understanding of time preferences can inform public policy, particularly in the area of health behaviours. Furthermore, in economic evaluation in health care, assumptions about time preferences play a crucial role in determining the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The authors carry out a literature review; focussing on papers published post-2002 so as to avoid repeating previous reviews. In this review the authors sought to:

  1. examine the influence of time preferences on health behaviours
  2. explain how the societal time discount rate differs from the private time discount rate
  3. determine how time discount rates affect the decisions of governments in the developing world
  4. assess how time discount rates affect individuals’ decision making in regard to risky behaviours such as smoking, diet and sexual behaviour
  5. discuss the repercussions of time preferences for the prevention of poor health.

The authors identified 3 main strategies that are used to capture time preferences; observed behaviour, experimental settings and the use of time preference proxies. The authors conclude that context plays a key role in determining the nature of time preferences; developing countries may exhibit different trends to developed countries. Furthermore, time preferences from a societal perspective do no necessarily match those of the individual.

Discussion points

  • Do the authors succeed in reviewing all relevant literature?
  • Is the authors’ review strategy sufficient?
  • Does the study successfully address the 5 aims set out in the introduction?
  • How might this study inform future research?

Missed the meeting? Add your thoughts on the paper in the comments below.

About these ads
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The efficiency of treating fat smokers

Recent changes to the NHS raise the potential for health care providers to deny treatment based on an individual’s characteristics, such as their weight or whether they smoke. I think this calls for a reminder of the implications of discriminating in this way, and why, I think, we would do best to avoid it.

Public preferences

The NHS is paid for by the public, so we generally accept that it should do what the public wants (unless the public gets it wrong, of course). A growing body of literature exists on public preferences for the distribution of health care, and the ways in which people might like to discriminate; at least one review of the literature has existed since 2005. When it comes to organ transplantation, some people show a preference for the recipient to have not caused their own illness. Elsewhere, polls have found that around 40% of people would give priority to such individuals. Despite this representing a large minority it does not indicate wide public support for discrimination based on this. Dolan et al (2008) reported that people give 8% less weight to individuals whose illness can be partially attributed to their own lifestyle.

So, it is not clear that the public wants the NHS to discriminate in this way. If it were clear it would presumably be included in NICE guidance. However, cynical readers will of course recognise that such policies are driven by financial incentives rather than a desire to act in the public’s interest.

Efficiency

8% said Dolan and co. This suggests that, if an intervention is close to NICE’s threshold QALY value, it may be justifiable for the fat smokers to miss out. Afterall, their health gain is of a reduced value to society. However, the real efficiency question is whether individuals responsible for their own health problem are actually likely to have a smaller health gain from treatment. This is a very real possibility, as fat smokers are more likely to experience complications in treatment and whatnot. More research should explicitly consider the impact of individual characteristics on the cost-effectiveness of treatment. But people’s capacity to benefit from treatment could be influenced by many things. If we are to discriminate based on efficiency arguments then we must also discriminate between people based on race, age, sex, sexuality, occupation, where they live, and who-knows-what else.

For me, none of this matters. Clinicians can make judgements in individual cases, and it may be efficient to do so, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where discriminating against individuals based on arbitrary distinctions would increase efficiency. If you don’t treat the fat smokers they’ll probably get more ill. They’ll probably die young. When the cancer spreads and the myocardial infarctions become frequent, it’ll cost a lot to save their lives  - a cost that just might have been avoided.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on February 7, 2012 in Efficiency and Equity

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 527 other followers

%d bloggers like this: