Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Cost-benefit analysis (2)
- Behavioral economics (1)
- Bias perception (1)
- CBA (1)
- CEA (1)
-
- Cost-effectiveness analysis (1)
- Extrawelfarism (1)
- Health care (1)
- Health policy choice (1)
- Healthcare costs (1)
- Kaldor-Hicks principle (1)
- Law Moral and Political Philosophy (1)
- Liability insurance (1)
- Liberty (1)
- Mental Health (1)
- Nudge (1)
- Philosophy (1)
- Professional negligence (1)
- Psychology and Psychiatry (1)
- Social welfare functions (1)
- Tort compensation (1)
- Torts (1)
- Waiver (1)
- Welfare theory (1)
- Welfarism (1)
- Willingness to accept (1)
- Willingness to pay (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Mental Disorders And The "System Of Judgmental Responsibility", Anita L. Allen
Mental Disorders And The "System Of Judgmental Responsibility", Anita L. Allen
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Allowing Patients To Waive The Right To Sue For Medical Malpractice: A Response To Thaler And Sunstein, Tom Baker, Timothy D. Lytton
Allowing Patients To Waive The Right To Sue For Medical Malpractice: A Response To Thaler And Sunstein, Tom Baker, Timothy D. Lytton
All Faculty Scholarship
This essay critically evaluates Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s proposal to allow patients to prospectively waive their rights to bring a malpractice claim, presented in their recent, much acclaimed book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. We show that the behavioral insights that undergird Nudge do not support the waiver proposal. In addition, we demonstrate that Thaler and Sunstein have not provided a persuasive cost-benefit justification for the proposal. Finally, we argue that their liberty-based defense of waivers rests on misleading analogies and polemical rhetoric that ignore the liberty and other interests served by patients’ tort law rights. …
Contingent Valuation Studies And Health Policy, Matthew D. Adler
Contingent Valuation Studies And Health Policy, Matthew D. Adler
All Faculty Scholarship
This short comment argues that both cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) should be seen as imperfect tools for evaluating health policy. This is true, not only for extra-welfarists, but even for welfarists, since both CBA and CEA can deviate from the use of social welfare functions (SWF). A simple model is provided to illustrate the divergence between CBA, CEA, and the SWF approach. With this insight in mind, the comment considers the appropriate role of contingent-valuation studies. For full text, please see: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/madler/workingpapers/578A59B6d01.pdf.