Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 49, Issues 1–2, September 1999, Pages 63-74
Health Policy

Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00043-3Get rights and content

Abstract

This small-scale study develops a new methodology for investigating which ethical principles of health care rationing the public support after discussion and deliberation. In ten groups of about six people, members of the public are asked to discuss a hypothetical rationing choice, concerning four identified patients who are described in general terms but without detailed information. It is explained to respondents that the purpose of the exercise is to find out what general ethical principles they support. Discussions are chaired by an academic specialising in health policy, whose role is to encourage debate but not actively to participate. On the basis of an innovative qualitative data analysis, which translates what people say into ethical principles identified in the theoretical literature, the public appear to support three main rationing principles: (1) a broad ‘rule of rescue’ that gives priority to those in immediate need, (2) health maximisation and (3) equalisation of lifetime health. To our knowledge, this pluralistic viewpoint on rationing has never been developed into a coherent theoretical position, nor into a quantifiable model that health care managers can use for guidance.

Introduction

What ethical principles should govern decisions about the distribution or ‘rationing’ of limited health care resources [1]? Academics and health care professionals have proposed a number of different and potentially conflicting principles, including distribution according to need [2], distribution so as to maximise the health of the community [3] and distribution so as to reduce health inequalities [4]. However, there is now an increasing interest in finding out which of these principles are supported by the general public, on whose behalf rationing decisions are being made [5].

Much of the existing evidence comes from questionnaire surveys and opinion polls [6]. This conventional way of consulting the public has its limitations, however, since respondents are not given time to consider their answers in any depth, and may be unduly influenced by the way that questions are framed. The study reported in this paper takes a more ‘deliberative’ approach to consulting the public, which gives respondents an opportunity to discuss the issues and to develop their views during the process of consultation.

The study was based on small group discussions about a hypothetical rationing exercise designed to raise a wide range of ethical issues. Respondents had to choose which of four identified patients should be treated, assuming there is only enough money to treat one of them. In order to focus discussion on general principles, rather than particular details of the case, respondents were deliberately not presented with detailed information about the four patients and their suggested treatments. The aim was to elicit generalisable principles that can be applied to a wide range of decisions.

In this respect, this study departs from the ‘citizen’s jury’ approach described by Lengahan [7], which typically presents respondents with detailed information about the particular case being discussed, including the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses. The study also departs somewhat from the usual ‘focus group’ approach used by market researchers and sociologists [8], since (1) discussion leaders took a more pro-active role to encourage debate about general rationing principles and (2) in the qualitative analysis, respondents’ views were translated into general principles identified from a review of the theoretical literature.

Section snippets

The sample

In this study, 60 members of the general public from the York area of England took part in two separate group discussions, involving questionnaires and discussions about a wide range of issues of fairness in health care. The aim was to recruit ten groups of six people who would meet for about 2 h on two separate occasions with a fortnight between each meeting. Letters of invitation were sent out to 1000 people who were randomly chosen from two general practitioners’ lists in York. They were

Results

Table 2 shows the rankings that respondents gave to the four patients. Five of the 60 respondents (8%) argued that it is unethical to make explicit rationing choices and hence gave all four patients the same priority. However, the vast majority (92%) were prepared to give priority to at least one of the patients. Daniel was the top or joint-top priority for 80% of respondents, followed by Marinder and then Steve, with Joanne receiving lowest priority on average. Although Daniel emerged as the

Discussion

On the basis of the study of considered public opinion reported in this paper, it would seem that the public accept three main principles of justice: (1) a broad ‘rule of rescue’, (2) maximising the health of the whole community and (3) reducing inequalities in people’s lifetime experience of health. The public do not appear to accept the view that improving population health is the primary goal of the health care system [3]. Nor does the public appear to accept the official view of the medical

Acknowledgements

We thank Northern and Yorkshire Regional Research and Development Office for funding this research, and Nottingham Health Authority for permission to use their ‘How would you choose?’ exercise. For input into the study of public views we are grateful to Sue Baughan, Brian Ferguson and Rachel Johns, and Alan Williams; and for helpful comments we would like to thank Tony Culyer, Paul Menzel, an anonymous referee, and participants at the many lively seminars where we have presented this material.

References (16)

  • A.J. Culyer et al.

    Equity and equality in health and health care

    J Health Econ

    (1993)
  • R. Smith

    Viagra and rationing

    Br Med J

    (1998)
  • Philosophy and practice of medical ethics

    (1988)
  • A. Culyer

    The principal objective of the NHS should be to maximise health: the case for

  • A. Williams

    Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument

    Health Econ

    (1997)
  • J. Jordan et al.

    Whose priorities? listening to users and the public

    Br Med J

    (1998)
  • J. Kneeshaw

    What does the public think about rationing? A review of the evidence

  • Lengahan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens’ juries. Health Policy (in...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text