IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v4y2009i02p209-221_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it not time for health economists to rethink equity and access?

Author

Listed:
  • MOONEY, GAVIN

Abstract

This article considers two key issues in health economics regarding the question of equity. First, why have health economists not resolved better the issue of what are equity and access? Second, the paper draws attention to the relative lack of analyses of equity concerns outside of health care. The question of whose values should prevail in equity is also addressed. On the first issue, there is an obsession with quantification in economics with the result that in analysing equity, in practice often ‘use’ has been substituted for ‘access’. The problem of defining access has thereby been by-passed. This has taken the pressure off trying to research access per se. Second, what is meant by equity and access are in part culturally determined. The continued efforts of health economists to treat equity as some universal construct are misplaced. The lack of effort on the part of health economists to look at equity more broadly than health care equity is concerning. Certainly, to be pursued in practice, equity in both health and health care need a shift in resources, which will be opposed by those who exercise power over decision making in health care and in society more generally. Currently health economists’ analyses say all too little about power and property rights in health care and in society. It is argued that the relevant citizens or communities which a health service serves are best placed to judge the access barriers they face and their relative heights. A useful definition of equity established by a citizens’ jury in Perth, Australia is used to exemplify this point. It is concluded that the often all too simplistic equity goals adopted in health economics (and sometimes public health discourse) need to be challenged. For health economists, there is a need for more of us to get involved in the issues around inequalities, class and power and the impact of these on health.

Suggested Citation

  • Mooney, Gavin, 2009. "Is it not time for health economists to rethink equity and access?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 209-221, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:4:y:2009:i:02:p:209-221_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133109004848/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. Jaime Caro & John E. Brazier & Jonathan Karnon & Peter Kolominsky-Rabas & Alistair J. McGuire & Erik Nord & Michael Schlander, 2019. "Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 293-299, March.
    2. Dimitris Zavras, 2022. "Access to the COVID-19 Vaccine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-4, September.
    3. R. Scott Braithwaite & Mark S. Roberts, 2021. "Are Discount Rates Too High? Population Health and Intergenerational Equity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 245-249, February.
    4. Grant Gibson & Michel Grignon & Jeremiah Hurley & Li Wang, 2019. "Here comes the SUN: Self‐assessed unmet need, worsening health outcomes, and health care inequity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 727-735, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:4:y:2009:i:02:p:209-221_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.