Abstract
We construct a stochastic model of illness, death and treatment choice to analyze two proposals – legally-binding advance directives and insurer-paid compensation schemes – to reduce the incidence of aggressive and possibly futile end-of-life treatment. We assess whether, in a competitive insurance market, the proposals are consistent with (i) individual rationality in selection of competitive insurance contracts; (ii) medically ethical treatment provision; and (iii) reductions in end-of-life expenditures. We conclude that binding advance directives are always medically unethical, while compensation schemes are medically ethical. We derive the compensation schedule arising in a competitive equilibrium, and show that it reduces aggressive treatment and satisfies individual rationality.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
