IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Incorporating concerns for equal lifetime health in evaluations of public health programs

Listed author(s):
  • Robberstad, Bjarne
  • Norheim, Ole F.
Registered author(s):

    Economic evaluations are increasingly common as evidence in priority setting decisions, but lack of quantification of equity impact represents a situation of asymmetric information that easily lead to discrepancies between stated preferences for distribution of health care and the preferences revealed in actual priority setting. We suggest Gini impact and Achievement Index methodology as tools that can be used to incorporate concerns for equal lifetime health in numerical evaluation of public health programs. In a case study from Tanzania we explore how these techniques may diminish this information asymmetry. By comparing a childhood vaccine with treatment of hypertension in adults, we show that concerns for equity in the distribution of healthy years can be captured with standard measures of inequality and combined with a maximization concern. This illustrative case from a low-income setting, where resources are insufficient to meet the needs of both patient groups, illustrates how quantification of equity impact may change priorities.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953611002061
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 72 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 10 (May)
    Pages: 1711-1716

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:10:p:1711-1716
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Bleichrodt, Han & Doctor, Jason & Stolk, Elly, 2005. "A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 655-678, July.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Amartya Sen, 2002. "Why health equity?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 659-666.
    4. Wagstaff, Adam, 2002. "Inequality aversion, health inequalities and health achievement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 627-641, July.
    5. Tsuchiya, Aki, 1999. "Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 267-276, January.
    6. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208.
    7. Adam Wagstaff & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2004. "Overall versus socioeconomic health inequality: a measurement framework and two empirical illustrations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 297-301.
    8. Stolk, Elly A. & Pickee, Stefan J. & Ament, Andre H.J.A. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2005. "Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 343-355, November.
    9. Dean T. Jamison & Joel G. Breman & Anthony R. Measham & George Alleyne & Mariam Claeson & David B. Evans & Prabhat Jha & Ann Mills & Philip Musgrove, 2006. "Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, Second Edition," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 7242, September.
    10. M├Žstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    11. Dolan, Paul, 1998. "The measurement of individual utility and social welfare," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-52, January.
    12. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251.
    13. Aki Tsuchiya, 2000. "QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 57-68.
    14. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39.
    15. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the 'Fair Innings' Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132.
    16. Bleichrodt, Han & van Doorslaer, Eddy, 2006. "A welfare economics foundation for health inequality measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 945-957, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:10:p:1711-1716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.