↓ Skip to main content

Who Should Ration?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who Should Ration?
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas4-1702
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M Rosoff

Abstract

A principal component of physician decision making is judging what interventions are clinically appropriate. Due to the inexorable and steady increase of health care costs in the US, physicians are constantly being urged to exercise judicious financial stewardship with due regard for the financial implications of what they prescribe. When applied on a case-by-case basis, this otherwise reasonable approach can lead to either inadvertent or overt and arbitrary restriction of interventions for some patients rather than others on the basis of clinically irrelevant characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, age, or skin color. In the absence of systemwide reform in which the resources saved from one patient or group of patients are reallocated for the benefit of others, prudence is urged in the application of "bedside rationing."

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 7 22%