Should we accept a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs? A review and analysis of egalitarian arguments

Bioethics 35 (4):307-314 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In recent years, the issue of accepting a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs has been the subject of discussion in health care policy agencies and the academic literature. This article aims to provide an analysis of broadly egalitarian arguments for and against accepting higher costs per health improvement. More specifically, we aim to investigate which arguments one should agree upon putting aside and where further explorations are needed. We identify three kinds of arguments in the literature: considerations of substantial equality, formal equality, and opportunity cost. We argue that considerations of substantial equality do not support higher costs per health improvement orphan drugs, even if such considerations are considered valid. On the contrary, arguments of formal equality may support accepting a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs. However, in order to do so, a number of both normative and empirical issues must be resolved; these issues are identified in the article. For instance, it must be settled to what extent the opportunity cost in terms of foregone health for other patients is acceptable in order to uphold formal equality. We conclude that certain arguments can be set aside, and future focus should be put on the unresolved normative and empirical issues related to formal equality and opportunity cost.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why Health-Related Inequalities Matter and Which Ones Do.Alex Voorhoeve - 2019 - In Ole F. Norheim, Ezekiel J. Emanuel & Joseph Millum (eds.), Global Health Priority-Setting: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness. Oxford University Press. pp. 145-62.
The Case for Valuing Non-Health and Indirect Benefits.Govind Persad & Jessica du Toit - 2019 - In Ole F. Norheim, Ezekiel J. Emanuel & Joseph Millum (eds.), Global Health Priority-Setting: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness. Oxford University Press. pp. 207-222.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-07-21

Downloads
22 (#606,933)

6 months
5 (#246,492)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Erik Gustavsson
Linkoping University

References found in this work

Egalitarianism.Richard Arneson - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The concept of formal justice.Craig L. Carr - 1981 - Philosophical Studies 39 (3):211 - 226.

Add more references