• Fairness preferences over allo...

Treffer: Fairness preferences over allocation of scarce medical resources.

Title:
Fairness preferences over allocation of scarce medical resources.
Authors:
Yang Z; Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; Interdisciplinary Centre for Social Sciences (ICSS), Zhejiang University, China., Melkonyan T; Culverhouse College of Business, University of Alabama, United States of America. Electronic address: tamelkonyan@ua.edu., Safra Z; Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, United Kingdom.
Source:
Social science & medicine (1982) [Soc Sci Med] 2025 Nov; Vol. 384, pp. 118462. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Aug 16.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Pergamon Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8303205 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1873-5347 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02779536 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Soc Sci Med Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: Oxford ; New York : Pergamon, c1982-
MeSH Terms:
Resource Allocation*/methods , Resource Allocation*/standards , Social Justice*/psychology , Health Care Rationing*/methods , Health Care Rationing*/standards, Humans ; Male ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Longitudinal Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Aged
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Allocation of medical resources; Fairness; Justice
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20250923 Date Completed: 20251010 Latest Revision: 20251010
Update Code:
20251011
DOI:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118462
PMID:
40986936
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

Many argue that randomization is a fair way to allocate scarce resources. However, little is known about individual justice preferences for these mechanisms. This gap is particularly consequential, as public choices are often influenced by individual justice preferences. To address it, we propose a model using proportional probability weights for recipients' claims and conduct an empirical analysis using a longitudinal survey on allocating medical resources between two patients of different ages. A three-year panel dataset was collected from 2020 to 2022, containing 301 representative respondents. Our results show strong support for randomization reflecting proportional claims: 17% of participants favored equal probabilities, 63% prioritized younger patients, and 20% favored older patients, indicating varied justice principles. The findings indicate that the use of weighted lotteries to allocate scarce medical resources - and scarce resources more broadly - is consistent with the public's tradeoff between considerations of justice and efficiency.
(Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.