Does a patient’s health potential affect the social valuation of health services?

Jeff Richardson, Angelo Iezzi, Aimee Maxwell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Background Patients with a permanent impairment may be unable to reach full health. Consequently health services which cure illnesses which are unrelated to the impairment may increase health less than services for patients with no impairment. While it has been argued that this should not lead to discrimination against impaired patients there is little evidence to determine whether this equity-efficiency trade-off is consistent with social values. Objectives To measure the effect of permanent impairment upon the social valuation of services for unrelated illnesses. Methods Social valuations of services for illnesses associated with mobility, depression or pain were assessed and compared for patients with and without a permanent impairment using the Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP) instrument. The maximum valuation of services for impaired patients was also compared with the maximum utility which could be gained when utility was measured using three multi attribute utility instruments. Results Curing the illness of impaired patients was valued 8–11 percent less than the cure of patients with no impairment. Discrimination decreased as the severity of the illness increased. Valuation of health states using the utility instruments implied significantly greater discrimination than the social valuations using the RS-WTP instrument. Conclusions Health services are valued less highly when a patient’s health potential is impaired. However discrimination is significantly less than would occur if the value of the services were limited to the value of the health state causing the impairment. The argument for disregarding a patient’s limited health potential when resources are allocated therefore receives some support from social valuations but the case for completely equal treatment depends upon additional ethical arguments.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0192585
Number of pages15
JournalPLoS ONE
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2018

Cite this