Economists distinguish two kinds of efficiency .... "Technical
Efficiency" (doing everything at the least possible cost) and
"Allocative efficiency" (doing the right things ... namely those that
contribute most to your objectives, whatever they are). It is
possible to be technically efficient and yet be allocatively inefficient
if you are very good at doing lots of ineffective things!
Sorting out what you might mean by "equity" is far more difficult, but I
think the best broad-brush concept to work with is "the reduction of
inequalities in people's lifetime experience of health". This might
be contrasted with a desire to improve overall population health as much
as possible (which then becomes the efficiency objective).
Is it possible to do both? Yes and no! If you pursue either
objective in a single-minded way, it is very unlikely that this will
enable you (coincidentally) to maximise performance on the other
objective as well. So if that is the scenario you are thinking about,
the answer is "No". But if you see the situation as one in which
both are being pursued simultaneously, and you are willing to trade-off
a bit more equity for a bit less efficiency (or vice-versa) until you
reach the balance that you regard as the best achievable given the
resources you have, then the answer is "Yes".
Moral: clarify the question before offering an answer!
Alan Williams
Megan Jay wrote:
>
> Can the distribution of health care resources be both?
> I have been asked to comment on this statement and
> was looking for angles! Any advice?
>
> Megan Jonssen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
|