It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression

This paper will examine specific processes involved within the decision-making process of how to allocate limited health care resources. I will start by discussing how in order to compare and differentiate between health states, we have created ranking systems, based on the health state’s impact on...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hubbeling, Tess
Format: Others
Published: Scholarship @ Claremont 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1001
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2087&context=cmc_theses
id ndltd-CLAREMONT-oai-scholarship.claremont.edu-cmc_theses-2087
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-CLAREMONT-oai-scholarship.claremont.edu-cmc_theses-20872015-01-21T03:28:45Z It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression Hubbeling, Tess This paper will examine specific processes involved within the decision-making process of how to allocate limited health care resources. I will start by discussing how in order to compare and differentiate between health states, we have created ranking systems, based on the health state’s impact on people’s quality of life, which health states need more care, and which can be most effectively treated. We evaluate impact on quality of life by assigning quality weights to years of life lived with that health state, which we call quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs. Next, I will discuss the problems with assigning quality weights to health states; specifically, the disability paradox, meaning the distinct differences between quality weights assigned by non-patients versus patients. After that, I will explain how depression defies the trend of the disability paradox, and causes our prior arguments about why patients and non-patients rate health states different to contradict themselves., This leads me to suggest that we should consider a different way of deciding between different quality weights. I examine the arguments for choosing higher or lower quality weights, and conclude that because we have a moral imperative to provide health care resources to those in need, particularly those who are disadvantaged, we should take the lower quality weights and err on the side of overspending on health states. Ultimately, this will create the greatest change in funding for health states like depression that go against the disability paradox. Finally, I address the economic trade-offs we have to consider if we make the decision to spend more on treating health states. 2015-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1001 http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2087&context=cmc_theses © 2014 Tess Hubbeling default CMC Senior Theses Scholarship @ Claremont depression health spending health justice ethics health measurement QALYs Ethics and Political Philosophy
collection NDLTD
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic depression
health spending
health justice
ethics
health measurement
QALYs
Ethics and Political Philosophy
spellingShingle depression
health spending
health justice
ethics
health measurement
QALYs
Ethics and Political Philosophy
Hubbeling, Tess
It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
description This paper will examine specific processes involved within the decision-making process of how to allocate limited health care resources. I will start by discussing how in order to compare and differentiate between health states, we have created ranking systems, based on the health state’s impact on people’s quality of life, which health states need more care, and which can be most effectively treated. We evaluate impact on quality of life by assigning quality weights to years of life lived with that health state, which we call quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs. Next, I will discuss the problems with assigning quality weights to health states; specifically, the disability paradox, meaning the distinct differences between quality weights assigned by non-patients versus patients. After that, I will explain how depression defies the trend of the disability paradox, and causes our prior arguments about why patients and non-patients rate health states different to contradict themselves., This leads me to suggest that we should consider a different way of deciding between different quality weights. I examine the arguments for choosing higher or lower quality weights, and conclude that because we have a moral imperative to provide health care resources to those in need, particularly those who are disadvantaged, we should take the lower quality weights and err on the side of overspending on health states. Ultimately, this will create the greatest change in funding for health states like depression that go against the disability paradox. Finally, I address the economic trade-offs we have to consider if we make the decision to spend more on treating health states.
author Hubbeling, Tess
author_facet Hubbeling, Tess
author_sort Hubbeling, Tess
title It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
title_short It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
title_full It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
title_fullStr It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
title_full_unstemmed It's Worse Than We Think: Why It Matters That We Underestimate Depression
title_sort it's worse than we think: why it matters that we underestimate depression
publisher Scholarship @ Claremont
publishDate 2015
url http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1001
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2087&context=cmc_theses
work_keys_str_mv AT hubbelingtess itsworsethanwethinkwhyitmattersthatweunderestimatedepression
_version_ 1716728195408986112