IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/opn/wpaper/45.html

The Integration of Claims to Health-Care: a Programming Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Anand

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University)

Abstract

The paper contributes to the use of social choice and welfare theory in health economics by developing and applying the integration of claims framework to health-care rationing. Related to Sens critique of neo-classical welfare economics, the integration of claims framework recognises three primitive sources of claim: consequences, deontology and procedures. A taxonomy is presented with the aid of which it is shown that social welfare functions reflecting these claims individually or together, can be specified. Some of the resulting social choice rules can be regarded as generalisations of health-maximisation and all have normative justifications, though the justifications may not be universally acceptable. The paper shows how non-linear programming can be used to operationalize such choice rules and illustrates their differential impacts on the optimal provision of health-care. Following discussion of relations to the capabilities framework and the context in which rationing occurs, the paper concludes that the integration of claims provides a viable framework for modelling health-care rationing that is technically rigorous, general and tractable, as well as being consistent with relevant moral considerations and citizen preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Anand, 2002. "The Integration of Claims to Health-Care: a Programming Approach," Open Discussion Papers in Economics 45, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:opn:wpaper:45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anand, Paul & Dolan, Paul, 2005. "Equity, capabilities and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 219-222, January.
    2. Paula K. Lorgelly & Kenny D. Lawson & Elisabeth A.L. Fenwick & Andrew H. Briggs, 2010. "Outcome Measurement in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: a Role for the Capability Approach?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Richard Cookson, 2005. "QALYs and the capability approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 817-829, August.
    4. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    5. Oberender Peter & Zerth Jürgen, 2006. "Soziale Ziele und marktwirtschaftliches Gesundheitswesen - schlußendlich kein Gegensatz! Anmerkungen zum Spannungsfeld von Wettbewerbspolitik und Sozialrecht / Social claims and liberal health care re," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 57(1), pages 261-284, January.
    6. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2017. "A normative foundation for equity-sensitive health evaluation: The role of relative comparisons of health gains," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(5), pages 1009-1025, October.
    7. Wailoo, Allan & Anand, Paul, 2005. "The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 223-236, January.
    8. Morton, Alec & Thomas, Ranjeeta & Smith, Peter C., 2016. "Decision rules for allocation of finances to health systems strengthening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 97-108.
    9. Morton, Alec, 2014. "Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:opn:wpaper:45. 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: IT team member (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deopeuk.html .

    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.