Pros And Cons Of Age-Based Rationing Of Health Care

Since the mid 1960’s, healthcare costs have risen dramatically in the United States. In 1960, healthcare spending was 5% of GDP. In 2009 that number was 19% and it is projected to reach 34% in 2040. Although healthcare costs have increased in all industrialized countries, the costs are much higher in the United States. For example, the per capita expenditure in thr United States in 2010 was $8233. Compare this to Switzerland whose per capita expenditures was about $3000 less. $8233 was also much greater than the average expenditure per capita for other OECD countries in that same year. The cost is still enormous when compared on the basis of GDP; OECD countries spend on average 9.5%. However, this increase in healthcare costs has not translated to better health …show more content…
Advocates of age-based rationing argue that health care for the elderly should involve managing pain and symptoms but not treating with expensive treatments. They argue that the rationing of health services by age, society benefits from the increase in economic productivity that results when resources are diverted from the elderly retired population to those younger members of society who are more likely to be working. Although this type of rationing would decrease healthcare costs, I believe there are more effective and ethical ways to do so including tackling the costs of pharmaceuticals and focusing on preventive medicine. I believe it would be interesting to see how other industrialized countries, some of which have much higher life expectancies than us, decide how much and what care their elderly population should receive. Although there do seem to be some ethical concerns involved that need to be explored further, it makes sense from an economics point of view to invest more resources in treating the younger sects of the