Should equity in health be target number 1?

Policy measures to reduce socioeconomic health differences (SEHD)must be preceded by an analysis of the possibilities and desirabilityof a reduction. This paper argues that it is necessary to pursueequality in health, conceived as equal opportunities to achievehealth. This principle is justified as part of the principleof maximizing individual freedom of choice, and requires thateveryone has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible. Bymeans of this principle a distinction can be made between unjust,unavoidable, and acceptable health inequalities. The determinantsof SEHD which lead to inequalities considered unjust must besubject to policy. These are living conditions (physical andsocial environment and health care) and conditions of choice(e.g. the knowledge of an individual about the health risksof a certain behaviour). Even if SEHD are considered inequities,sometimes conflicting interests will make it difficult to proposea health policy to redress these inequities. These are partlythe consequence of the intersectoral character of a policy aimedat equality of opportunities to attain health, in which theimportance of health has to be weighed against other goals.Moreover the impact of such a policy on the individual freechoice has to be critically weighed. Finally in the contextof health care policy, conflicts between the principle of equalityand maximizing health can be expected.     

Regulation and selection of patients

During the past decades health legislation and regulation have been on the increase in most industrialized countries. The growing role of government in the provision and financing of health care, the need to correct given aspects of health care and the mandate to protect the underprivileged have been some of the many reasons for increased regulation. Different regulatory approaches and their respective advantages and disadvantages are reviewed in this paper. Particular attention is given to the crucial issue of how to regulate the access to scarce resources and how to cope within a legislative approach with the resulting patient selection.     

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health—the objective underpinning conventional CEA—and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and—crucially—who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.     

Determinants of accessibility and affordability of health care in post-socialist Tajikistan: Evidence and policy options

Abstract

There is increasing evidence of rising levels of inequality in health care utilisation in the post-socialist countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Against this backdrop, we investigate the determinants of accessibility and affordability of health care utilisation in Tajikistan. A modified version of the Andersen Behavioural Model is used to conceptualise the determinants of health care utilisation in Tajikistan. Poisson and Ordered Logit regression models are performed to estimate the determinants of health care utilisation. Empirical results demonstrate that poverty, chronic illness and disability are the most important determinants of health care utilisation and affordability in Tajikistan. Other significant determinants include gender, the level of education of the household head, and the availability of medical personnel at a given population point. These findings suggest an urgent need for health care reform in order to ensure equality in accessibility and affordability for the entire population.     

浙江省护理人力资源配置现状及其公平性评价

目的：评价2011年浙江省护理人力资源配置现状及其公平性,为相关部门决策提供参考依据。方法：采用描述性分析、洛伦兹曲线与基尼系数等方法来评价护理人力资源配置现状及其公平性。结果：浙江省每千人拥有注册护士数和床护比高于全国平均水平,但医护比与护士占卫技人员比例低于全国平均水平;浙江省各地护理人力资源按人口、面积分布的基尼系数分别为0．16、0．28。结论：浙江省护理人力资源总体配置不合理,地域分布不平衡;其配置总体处于相对公平状态,人口公平性优于地理公平性。     

Health,Equity and Intellectual Disability

In this paper, we first describe the current state of health across the world. We then note that despite general good health, it is not everyone's experience and that differences in health among people frequently appear to be unfair. Health promotion is a movement committed to prevention and to creating opportunities for all people to live healthy lives. We examine the application of health promotion to people with intellectual disability. Finally, we bring equity, health promotion and intellectual disability together and ask to what extent people with these problems are victims of inequity. If they are – as seems likely – societies that have built their health services on humane values should assume greater responsibility for meeting their special needs, promoting their opportunities for health as well as managing their illnesses.     

Mosquito nets and the poor: can social marketing redress inequities in access?

Treated mosquito nets are a practical malaria control tool. However, implementation of efficient delivery mechanisms remains a challenge. We investigated whether social marketing of treated mosquito nets results in decreased equity in rural Tanzania, through household surveys before the start of a social marketing programme and 3 years later. About 12,000 household heads were asked about ownership of nets and other assets including a tin roof, radio, or bicycle. A socio-economic status score was developed for each household. Net ownership was calculated for households in each quintile of this score, from poorest to least poor. In 1997, about 20% of the poorest households and over 60% of the least poor households owned a mosquito net. Three years later, more than half of the poorest households owned a net, as did over 90% of the least poor: the ratio of net ownership among the poorest to least poor increased from 0.3 in 1997 to 0.6 in 2000. Social marketing in the presence of an active private sector for nets was associated with increased equity.