Preferences As Fairness Judgments: a Critical Review of Normative Frameworks of Preference Elicitation and Development of an Alternative Based on Constitutional Economics

Overview

Journal Cost Eff Resour Alloc

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2024 Jan 30

PMID 38291472

Authors

Wolf Rogowski

Jurgen John

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Preference elicitation is widely used within health economic evaluations to inform coverage decisions. However, coverage decisions involve questions of social justice and it is unclear what role empirical evidence about preferences can play here. This study reviews the prevalent normative frameworks for using population-based preference elicitation and the criticisms they face, and proposes an alternative based on constitutional economics. The frameworks reviewed include a supposedly value-neutral framework of preferences as predictors of choice, preference utilitarian frameworks that aim to maximize preference satisfaction, and substantive consequentialist frameworks that aim to maximize happiness, health, or capabilities. The proposed alternative implements the idea that indices of social value are tools for conflict resolution, rather than tools for maximization. Preference elicitation is used for validating values generated by multi-criteria decision analysis results within representative processes of stakeholder deliberation.

Citing Articles

A framework for quantifying the multisectoral burden of animal disease to support decision making.

Lysholm S, Chaters G, Di Bari C, Hughes E, Huntington B, Rushton J Front Vet Sci. 2025; 12:1476505.

PMID: 39917311 PMC: 11799246. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1476505.

References

Salomon J, Vos T, Hogan D, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A . Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859):2129-43. PMC: 10782811. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61680-8. View

Bridges J, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D . Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):403-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013. View

Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A . QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2004; 14(2):197-208. DOI: 10.1002/hec.924. View

Richardson J, McKie J . Economic evaluation of services for a National Health scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework. J Health Econ. 2007; 26(4):785-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.11.004. View

Giacomini M, Hurley J, DeJean D . Fair reckoning: a qualitative investigation of responses to an economic health resource allocation survey. Health Expect. 2012; 17(2):174-85. PMC: 5060722. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00751.x. View

Weinstein M, Manning Jr W . Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997; 16(1):121-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00511-5. View

Richardson J, Khan M, Iezzi A, Maxwell A . Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2014; 35(3):276-91. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14543107. View

Brouwer W, Culyer A, van Exel N, Rutten F . Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008; 27(2):325-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.003. View

Harris A, Hill S, Chin G, Li J, Walkom E . The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28(5):713-22. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315247. View

10.

Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J . Capabilities as menus: a non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation. J Health Econ. 2012; 32(1):128-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.10.004. View

11.

Dolan P . In defence of subjective well-being. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008; 3(Pt 1):93-5. DOI: 10.1017/S1744133107004379. View

12.

Rogowski W, Landauer M, John J . [Decision-analytical modelling of costs per QALY in the context of the German Social Law]. Gesundheitswesen. 2009; 71(11):739-50. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1220756. View

13.

Giacomini M, Kenny N, DeJean D . Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?. Health Policy. 2008; 89(1):58-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.04.010. View

14.

Marckmann G . [Prioritisation in health care: learning from international experiences]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009; 103(2):85-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.012. View

15.

Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P . Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach. J Health Econ. 2008; 27(3):739-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.10.001. View

16.

Dunn M, Sheehan M, Hope T, Parker M . Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2012; 21(4):466-80. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180112000242. View

17.

Rogowski W . Evaluation as institution: a contractarian argument for needs-based economic evaluation. BMC Med Ethics. 2018; 19(1):59. PMC: 5998596. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0294-1. View

18.

Sullivan T, Hansen P, Ombler F, Derrett S, Devlin N . A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing 'dead'. Soc Sci Med. 2020; 246:112707. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112707. View

19.

Schwarzinger M, Lanoe J, Nord E, Durand-Zaleski I . Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade-off responses. Health Econ. 2004; 13(2):171-81. DOI: 10.1002/hec.808. View

20.

McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer A . The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(9):733-44. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004. View