Setting Health Care Priorities in Oregon
- 1 May 1991
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 265 (17), 2218-2225
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1991.03460170072036
Abstract
The Oregon Health Services Commission recently completed work on its principal charge: creation of a prioritized list of health care services, ranging from the most important to the least important. Oregon's draft priority list was criticized because it seemed to favor minor treatments over lifesaving ones. This reaction reflects a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between cost-effectiveness analysis and the powerful human proclivity to rescue endangered life: the "Rule of Rescue." Oregon'sfinalpriority list was generated without reference to costs and is, therefore, more intuitively sensible than the initial list. However, the utility of the final list is limited by its lack of specificity with regard to conditions and treatments. An alternative approach for setting health care priorities would circumvent the Rule of Rescue by carefully defining necessary indications for treatment. Such an approach might be applied to Oregon's final list in order to achieve better specificity. (JAMA. 1991;265:2218-2225)Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Preference and urgencyPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2003
- The health care resource allocation debate. Defining our termsJAMA, 1991
- Oregon Puts Bold Health Plan on IceScience, 1990
- Rationing Health Care: The Choice Before UsScience, 1990
- The use of QALYs in health care decision makingSocial Science & Medicine, 1989
- 3. Bentham in a Box: Technology Assessment and Health Care AllocationLaw, Medicine and Health Care, 1986
- Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical PracticesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1977