| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After January 14, 2022 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After N=2144 |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After Yes |
| Field Restricted Data Contact | Before | After [email protected] |
| Field Program Files | Before | After No |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After January 14, 2023 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After No |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After The fair innings principle states that fairness requires allocating life‐saving treatments to younger rather than older patients when each would gain the same extension in longevity. It is motivated by the notion that older patients have already benefited from a longer life and so have less claim to scarce treatment resources than younger patients who have not yet lived their “fair innings.” The principle can be theoretically justified by a prioritarian social welfare function applied to lifetime wellbeing. We conducted an online survey to test whether there is support for the principle in the general population (in France). We find substantial but not universal support. When choosing to allocate a treatment that would provide the same life extension to an older or younger patient, about 40 to 55 percent of respondents would allocate the treatment to the younger patient while about 30 to 35 percent are indifferent to which patient is treated. Holding the life extension to the older patient fixed, increasing (decreasing) the life extension to the younger patient increases (decreases) the fraction of respondents that would allocate treatment to the younger patient. These results highlight the tension between principles of equal treatment and giving priority to those who are worse off that confound healthcare policy. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Matthew D. Adler, Maddalena Ferranna, James K. Hammitt, Eugénie de Laubier, and Nicolas Treich (2023) Fair Innings: An Empirical Test, working paper. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C5vtNxqz5mjnrOtLcJaF_t4Bc1_u-V9y/view |