Unfair inequalities in health and health care

University Paris-Descartes, CNRS, LSE and IDEP, France.
Journal of Health Economics (Impact Factor: 2.25). 09/2008; 28(1):73-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.07.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Inequalities in health and health care are caused by different factors. Measuring "unfair" inequalities implies that a distinction is introduced between causal variables leading to ethically legitimate inequalities and causal variables leading to ethically illegitimate inequalities. An example of the former could be life-style choices, an example of the latter is social background. We show how to derive measures of unfair inequalities in health and in health care delivery from a structural model of health care and health production: "direct unfairness", linked to the variations in medical expenditures and health in the hypothetical distribution in which all legitimate sources of variation are kept constant; "fairness gap", linked to the differences between the actual distribution and the hypothetical distribution in which all illegitimate sources of variation have been removed. These two approaches are related to the theory of fair allocation. In general they lead to different results. We propose to analyse the resulting distributions with the traditional apparatus of Lorenz curves and inequality measures. We compare our proposal to the more common approach using concentration curves and analyse the relationship with the methods of direct and indirect standardization. We discuss how inequalities in health care can be integrated in an overall evaluation of social inequality.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the optimal allocation between health and lifestyle choices when society is concerned about forgiveness. Based on the idea of fresh starts, we construct a social ordering that permits us to make welfare assessments when it is acceptable to compensate individuals who have mismanaged their initial resources. Our social rule also allows for the inclusion of the fairness and responsibility approach in the model. Grounded on basic ethical principles, we propose the application of the minimax criterion to the existing distance between the individual’s final bundle and her ideal choice.
    Social Choice and Welfare 06/2013; 43(1):141-151. DOI:10.1007/s00355-013-0774-7 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although improving financial access is in the spotlight of the current U.S. health policy agenda, this alone does not address universal and comprehensive healthcare. Affordability is one barrier to healthcare, but others such as availability and accessibility, together defined as spatial accessibility, are equally important. In this paper, we develop a measurement and modeling framework that can be used to infer the impact of policy changes on disparities in spatial accessibility within and across different population groups. The underlying model for measuring spatial accessibility is optimization-based and accounts for constraints in the healthcare delivery system. The measurement method is complemented by statistical modeling and inference on the impact of various potential contributing factors to disparities in spatial accessibility. The emphasis of this study is on children's accessibility to primary care pediatricians, piloted for the state of Georgia. We focus on disparities in accessibility between and within two populations: children insured by Medicaid and other children. We find that disparities in spatial accessibility to pediatric primary care in Georgia are significant, and resistant to many policy interventions, suggesting the need for major changes to the structure of Georgia's pediatric healthcare provider network.
    The Annals of Applied Statistics 01/2015; 8(4). DOI:10.1214/14-AOAS728 · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionAccurate measurement of health inequities is indispensable to track progress or to identify needs for health equity policy interventions. A key empirical task is to measure the extent to which observed inequality in health ¿ a difference in health ¿ is inequitable. Empirically operationalizing definitions of health inequity has generated an important question not considered in the conceptual literature on health inequity. Empirical analysis can explain only a portion of observed health inequality. This paper demonstrates that the treatment of unexplained inequality is not only a methodological but ethical question and that the answer to the ethical question ¿ whether unexplained health inequality is unfair ¿ determines the appropriate standardization method for health inequity analysis and can lead to potentially divergent estimates of health inequity.Methods We use the American sample of the 2002¿03 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health and measure health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). We model variation in the observed HUI by demographic, socioeconomic, health behaviour, and health care variables using Ordinary Least Squares. We estimate unfair HUI by standardizing fairness, removing the fair component from the observed HUI. We consider health inequality due to factors amenable to policy intervention as unfair. We contrast estimates of inequity using two fairness-standardization methods: direct (considering unexplained inequality as ethically acceptable) and indirect (considering unexplained inequality as unfair). We use the Gini coefficient to quantify inequity.ResultsOur analysis shows that about 75% of the variation in the observed HUI is unexplained by the model. The direct standardization results in a smaller inequity estimate (about 60% of health inequality is inequitable) than the indirect standardization (almost all inequality is inequitable).Conclusions The choice of the fairness-standardization method is ethical and influences the empirical health inequity results considerably. More debate and analysis is necessary regarding which treatment of the unexplained inequality has the stronger foundation in equity considerations.
    International Journal for Equity in Health 01/2015; 14(1):11. DOI:10.1186/s12939-015-0138-2 · 1.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014