This quick question can trigger an extensive debate.
Any policy, program or intervention is decision for resource allocation.
Whatever intervention is implemented there always will be winners (people
who benefit of it) and losers (people who benefit less of it).
Choices, or prioritizing competing demands, are inevitable, since resources
are limited and less than the needs, i.e. always some claims are declined.
The question is: "Which claims will be declined?" and more importantly: "On
what basis some claims will be declined?"
I've tackled briefly this issue here
http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/webprogram/Paper176116.html
You can see also slides of two presentations (one includes authors notes)
here
http://independent.academia.edu/JordanPanayotov/Talks
However, I highly recommend both papers available here
http://independent.academia.edu/JordanPanayotov/Papers which offer a tool
for solution providing universal explanations and predictions.
All the best,
Jordan
*******
Jordan Panayotov, MEc, MPH (Health Economics)
Director
Independent Centre for Analysis & Research of Economies
Melbourne, Australia
www.icare.biz
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Oliver" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:45 PM
Subject: Quick question
Those that seem most concerned with inequalities in health outcomes also
often seem to think that the 'voice' of the disadvantaged is not heard
(a sort of democratic deficit). And yet isn't it the case that the
policies that are most often proposed to address health inequalities
conflict with individual liberty, going against the grain of what the
majority (including the majority of the disadvantaged) appear to say
they want?
How is that circle squared?
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
|