The moral psychology of rationing among physicians: the role of harm and fairness intuitions in physician objections to cost-effectiveness and cost-containment

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

Jon C Tilburt³  Katherine M James⁴  Farr A Curlin¹  Ryan M Antiel² 

[1] Department of Medicine and the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA;Program in Professionalism and Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA;Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA;Biomedical Ethics Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

关键词: Cost-containment;    Cost-effectiveness;    Moral beliefs;    Survey;    Physicians;   

Others  :  816407
DOI  :  10.1186/1747-5341-8-13

 received in 2013-01-23, accepted in 2013-09-02,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

Physicians vary in their moral judgments about health care costs. Social intuitionism posits that moral judgments arise from gut instincts, called “moral foundations.” The objective of this study was to determine if “harm” and “fairness” intuitions can explain physicians’ judgments about cost-containment in U.S. health care and using cost-effectiveness data in practice, as well as the relative importance of those intuitions compared to “purity”, “authority” and “ingroup” in cost-related judgments.

Methods

We mailed an 8-page survey to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians. The survey included the MFQ30 and items assessing agreement/disagreement with cost-containment and degree of objection to using cost-effectiveness data to guide care. We used t-tests for pairwise subscale mean comparisons and logistic regression to assess associations with agreement with cost-containment and objection to using cost-effectiveness analysis to guide care.

Results

1032 of 1895 physicians (54%) responded. Most (67%) supported cost-containment, while 54% expressed a strong or moderate objection to the use of cost-effectiveness data in clinical decisions. Physicians who strongly objected to the use of cost-effectiveness data had similar scores in all five of the foundations (all p-values > 0.05). Agreement with cost-containment was associated with higher mean “harm” (3.6) and “fairness” (3.5) intuitions compared to “in-group” (2.8), “authority” (3.0), and “purity” (2.4) (p < 0.05). In multivariate models adjusted for age, sex, region, and specialty, both “harm” and “fairness” were significantly associated with judgments about cost-containment (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; OR = 1.7 [1.4-2.1], respectively) but were not associated with degree of objection to cost-effectiveness (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.4]; OR = 0.9 [0.7-1.0]).

Conclusions

Moral intuitions shed light on variation in physician judgments about cost issues in health care.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Antiel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Griner PF: Payment reform and the mission of academic medical centers. N Engl J Med 2010, 363(19):1784-1786.
• [2]Gruber J: The cost implications of health care reform. N Engl J Med 2010, 362(22):2050-2051.
• [3]Garber AM, Sox HC: The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29(10):1805-1811.
• [4]Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: What is Comparative Effectiveness Research. [cited 2013 August 5]; Available from: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/what-is-comparative-effectiveness-research1 webcite
• [5]American College of Physicians: Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148(12):956-961.
• [6]Weinstein MC, et al.: Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996, 276(15):1253-1258.
• [7]Grassley C: Health care reform–a Republican view. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(25):2397-2399.
• [8]Alexander GC, Stafford RS: Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge? JAMA 2009, 301(23):2488-2490.
• [9]Avorn J: Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009, 360(19):1927-1929.
• [10]Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC: Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005, 353(14):1516-1522.
• [11]Hall MA, Berenson RA: Ethical practice in managed care: a dose of realism. Ann Intern Med 1998, 128(5):395-402.
• [12]Ubel PA, Arnold RM: The unbearable rightness of bedside rationing. Physician duties in a climate of cost containment. Arch Intern Med 1995, 155(17):1837-1842.
• [13]MacIntyre A: Utilitarianism and cost/benefit analysis: An essay on the relevance of moral philosophy to bureaucratic theory. In Ethical Theory and Business. Edited by Beauchamp T, Bowie N. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1983:266-276.
• [14]Angell M: The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1993, 3(3):279-286.
• [15]Pellegrino E: Rationing health care: the ethics of medical gatekeeping. J Contemp Health Law Policy 1986, 2:23-45.
• [16]Sulmasy DP: Physicians, cost control, and ethics. Ann Intern Med 1992, 116(11):920-926.
• [17]Sulmasy DP: Cancer care, money, and the value of life: whose justice? Which rationality? J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(2):217-222.
• [18]Beach MC, et al.: Physician conceptions of responsibility to individual patients and distributive justice in health care. Ann Fam Med 2005, 3(1):53-59.
• [19]Haidt J: The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 2001, 108(4):814-834.
• [20]Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA: Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol 2009, 96(5):1029-1046.
• [21]Haidt J: The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 2007, 316(5827):998-1002.
• [22]Antiel RM, et al.: Physicians’ beliefs and U.S. health care reform--a national survey. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(14):e23.
• [23]Graham J, et al.: Mapping the moral domain. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011, 101(2):366-385.
• [24]Bloche MG: Clinical loyalties and the social purposes of medicine. JAMA 1999, 281(3):268-274.
• [25]Daniels N: Why saying no to patients in the United States is so hard. Cost containment, justice, and provider autonomy. N Engl J Med 1986, 314(21):1380-1383.
• [26]Dyer AR: Patients, not costs, come first. Hastings Cent Rep 1986, 16(1):5-7.
• [27]Weintraub WS, Cohen DJ: The limits of cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009, 2(1):55-58.