Citizen's Preferences Regarding Principles to Guide Health-Care Allocation Decisions in Thailand

Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which five principles of rationing (lottery, rule of rescue, health maximization, fair innings, and choicism) were preferred by a sample of Thai citizens for selecting patients to receive high-cost therapies. Methods A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Value in health 2008-12, Vol.11 (7), p.1194-1202
Hauptverfasser: Kasemsup, Vijj, MD, PhD, Schommer, Jon C., PhD, Cline, Richard R., PhD, Hadsall, Ronald S., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which five principles of rationing (lottery, rule of rescue, health maximization, fair innings, and choicism) were preferred by a sample of Thai citizens for selecting patients to receive high-cost therapies. Methods A self-administered survey was used for collecting data from a sample of 1000 individuals living in Thailand. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used for describing and validating the data. Out of the 1000 sample members, 780 (78%) provided usable responses. Results The results showed that within specific situations under budget constraints, Thai people used each of the criteria we studied to ration health care including: 1) lottery principle; 2) rule of rescue; 3) health maximization; 4) fair innings; and 5) choicism. Conclusions The extent to which the criteria were applied depended on the specific situation placed before the decision-maker. “Choicism” (equalizing opportunity for health) was the most preferred method for rationing when compared to each of the other four principles.
ISSN:1098-3015
1524-4733
DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00321.x