Perspectives from economics and philosophy on the policy-relevance of health preferences on reimbursement decision-making.
Preferences play a central role in healthcare reimbursement decisions, for example informing cost-effectiveness analysis, priority setting, and medical product development. But are preferences as currently elicited to inform these decisions fit-for-purpose, or ‘policy-relevant’?
Established literatures in philosophy and behavioural economics challenge this assumption. Relevant preferences would, for example, be well-informed, based on correct reasoning, and due to self-regarding or public-regarding reasons (but not necessarily both). All of these conditions have been contested empirically.
This workshop has therefore invited health economists, behavioural economists, and philosophers to make headway on the question: How can we determine whether stated health preferences are policy-relevant, and what should we do if we have good reason to believe they are not?
In this workshop, which includes a keynote by Daniel Hausman (Rutgers University), the question of when health policy should be based on health preferences and which challenges exists in the measurement and interpretation of those preference will be explored in three sessions (see below for details). The workshop aims to develop agenda for future interdisciplinary research on policy-relevant preferences in healthcare reimbursement.
For more information, the programme and registration click here.