Abstract
In cost-utility analysis, the numbers of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained are aggregated by placing the same weight on each QALY. Deviations from this rubric have been proposed on a number of grounds, including the degree to which persons might be deemed responsible for the illness faced, and inequality in lifetime health between groups. Most research has looked at these factors in isolation. This paper analyses public preferences about the relative importance of these factors. Over 500 members of the general public in the UK are interviewed in their homes. Where "blameworthy" groups experience a moderate drop in quality of life due to their behaviour, they appear to receive higher priority than an otherwise "trustworthy" group if they also experience poorer health prospects because the latter is weighted more heavily than the former.
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.
