Display options
Share it on

Health Expect. 2011 Mar;14(1):105-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00646.x. Epub 2010 Dec 02.

The economics of choice: lessons from the U.S. health-care market.

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy

Yaniv Hanoch, Thomas Rice

Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, UK. [email protected]

PMID: 21122041 PMCID: PMC5060563 DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00646.x

Abstract

The English health-care system is moving towards increasing consumers' choice. Following economic thinking, it is assumed that such a policy will improve quality, enhance patient satisfaction and reduce health disparities. Indeed, the English health-care system has already built the necessary infrastructure to increase patients' choice. Before expanding the range of choices further, however, it is important that policy makers be aware of the limitations and hurdles that such a policy contains. Here, we highlight these limitations by drawing on the influential work of Kenneth Arrow, who has argued that we cannot treat the health-care market as if it was just another market, and the ideas of Herbert Simon, who questioned whether people had sufficient cognitive abilities to make effective choices in an information-rich environment. In the light of these two strands of thought, we review evidence suggesting that many older adults have low (health) literacy levels, raising concerns over their ability to obtain, process and understand medical-related information, with its increasing complexity, associated risks and emotional involvement. We also discuss recent findings from the United States highlighting the difficulties older users of health-care face with a wide range of prescription drug insurance plans from which to choose. Thus, learning from the experience of health-care systems where choice is abundant could help any health system interested in extending patients' choice to better target the domains where more choice could be beneficial and possibly avoid those where it could be detrimental.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

References

  1. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):147-53 - PubMed
  2. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Dec;61(12):1086-90 - PubMed
  3. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):67-72 - PubMed
  4. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004 Jan-Feb;17(1):44-7 - PubMed
  5. Health Econ Policy Law. 2010 Oct;5(4):437-57 - PubMed
  6. Med Decis Making. 1999 Jul-Sep;19(3):221-9 - PubMed
  7. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78 - PubMed
  8. Nurs Older People. 2006 Jul;18(6):10-1 - PubMed
  9. Health Expect. 2004 Jun;7(2):176-9 - PubMed
  10. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan-Feb;23(1):160-7 - PubMed
  11. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Oct;4(Pt 4):489-501 - PubMed
  12. Am J Public Health. 2002 Aug;92(8):1278-83 - PubMed
  13. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44 - PubMed
  14. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Dec;79(6):995-1006 - PubMed
  15. Med Care. 2002 May;40(5):395-404 - PubMed
  16. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Dec;19(12):1228-39 - PubMed
  17. Am Econ Rev. 2011 Jun 1;101(4):1180-1210 - PubMed
  18. Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Apr;64(2):169-90 - PubMed
  19. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Oct;4(Pt 4):479-88 - PubMed
  20. Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):407-13 - PubMed
  21. Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38 - PubMed
  22. JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1239-44 - PubMed
  23. Med Care Res Rev. 2008 Feb;65(1):114-26 - PubMed
  24. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Sep-Oct;26(5):w630-43 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types