Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing health at different ages

Evidence from a nationally representative survey in the US

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Evidence about how people value health gains for different age groups is controversial and incomplete, despite the significance of this issue for priority setting in health policy.

Objective

The aim of this study was to collect and analyse nationally representative data in the US regarding how people prioritize health programmes for children versus older adults.

Methods

In January 2009, an online survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were asked for their preferences between health programmes benefiting 100 children aged 10 years versus health programmes benefiting a randomly varying number of adults aged 60 years. Participants were also asked about reasons for their choices.

Results

The survey response rate was 64% (n = 2132). Most respondents favoured programmes for 100 children aged 10 years when compared with programmes benefiting as many as 1000 adults aged 60 years. This was true even for the respondent group least inclined to favour children — older adults without children aged <18 years.

Conclusion

US adults, regardless of sociodemographic characteristics, report preferences for health gains for children that go well beyond differentials that can be explained by relative life expectancy. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these findings accurately reflect societal preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III

References

  1. Schmidt CW. Subjective science: environmental cost-benefit analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2003; 111(10): A530–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting. Health Econ 2000; 9: 57–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14: 197–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Citizens Council report on age [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Citizenscouncil_report_age.pdf [Accessed 2011 Mar 21]

  6. University of Michigan Health System. C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan, 2009 Jan

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, et al. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information results from a national survey. JAMA 2003; 289(18): 2400–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis MM, Fant K. Coverage of vaccines in private health plans: what does the public prefer? Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24(3): 770–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tarini BA, Singer DC, Clark SJ, et al. Parents’ concern about their own and their children’s genetic disease risk: potential the effects of family history vs genetic test result. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162: 1079–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lieu TA, Ray GT, Ortega-Sanchez IR, et al. Willingness-to-pay for a quality-adjusted life-year based on community member and patient preferences for temporary health states associated with zoster. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27(12): 1005–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Dec Making 1995; 15: 201–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cropper ML, Aydede SK, Portney PR. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncertainty 1994; 8(3): 243–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jelsma J, Shumba D, Kristian H, et al. Preferences of urban Zimbabweans for health and life lived at different ages. Bull World Health Organ 2002; 80(3): 204–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arias E. United States life tables, 2004. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2007 Dec 28; 56(9): 1–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johannesson M, Johansson PO. The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old. Health Policy 1996; 37(3): 153–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lewis PA, Charny M. Which of 2 individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can’t treat both? J Med Ethics 1989; 15(1): 28–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Busschbach JJV, Hessing DJ, Decharro FT. The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37(2): 153–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, et al. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996; 4(2): 103–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuder LB, Roeder PW. Attitudes toward age-based healthcare rationing: a qualitative assessment. J Aging Health 1995; 7(2): 301–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zweibel NR, Cassel CK, Karrison T. Public attitudes about the use of chronological age as a criterion for allocating health care resources. Gerontologist 1993; 33(1): 74–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Anand P, Wailoo A. Utilities versus rights to publicly provided goods: arguments and evidence from health care rationing. Economica 2000; 67(268): 543–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Econ 2001; 10: 233–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

    Daniel Eisenberg (Associate Professor)

  2. Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Gary L. Freed, Matthew M. Davis, Dianne Singer & Lisa A. Prosser

  3. School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Matthew M. Davis

Authors
  1. Daniel Eisenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary L. Freed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew M. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dianne Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lisa A. Prosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Eisenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisenberg, D., Freed, G.L., Davis, M.M. et al. Valuing health at different ages. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9, 149–156 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11587340-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11587340-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation