Many policy makers aim to reduce health inequalities in groups. In fact, the purpose of the delivery cost effectiveness analysis (DCEA) approach is to include the treatment value based on the range they reduce inequality. However, what kind of inequality we are trying to reduce: ex post Or East, ex post Inequality means reducing the inequality of results in a given time. Pre-disgrace focuses on the same access to care at a certain time-the results are different.
An important question is how to estimate inequality from an east-post or east-ante perspective?
A paper of Hansen, KJær and Gyrd-Hansen (2025) summarizes the current approaches to esimation.
[an] ex post The perspective … includes respondents to act as social decision makers and distribute resources in current patient groups, which they are not … This approach aligns with additional welpherist tradition of social welfare that represents the yoga of the usefulness of individuals. The “additional” assessment refers to the expansion of the location, which allows for the re -weight of utilities to reflect public inequality …
Other researchers have demanded to disclose personal distribution preferences East Perspective, to ensure that individuals are separated from their position. “Veil of ignorance” approach in alignment with rolls … A strategy ask the respondents to make an option from your imaginary unborn grandson. An alternative approach is to follow the strategy of the sangsi, including to present individuals with similar possibilities of ending in every possible future position. This approach has been implemented to study the distribution preferences for income in literature … Harshani argues that this strategy will contain fair social distribution that are aligned with a well -versed approach of expected utility as individuals will try to reduce the risk of termination in a particular bad situation.
The authors claim that only pre -pre -ideas are important for the option value, which the author defines as “value as the citizen keeps a public (health care) service to gain access to the service, even though it is actually a very little possibility of the citizen using it.”
Which approach generates more inequality? Then the purpose of Hansen paper is to answer this question using the following approach:
We compare those preferences that arise while applying ex post Perspective and East Using the average expected utility approach of greenery [
Harsanyi 1955, 1975]Views are different in it ex post In perspective, the focus has been focused on reducing the load to be associated with some results, while East The approach wants to evaluate the expected value of individuals of future uncertain results, including options value. We hypothesize that because East Perspective alisits distributional preferences inclusive of options value, this approach can achieve strong preferences for equal distribution if the advantage of private risk is a strong driver of distribution related preferences compared to social inequality.
Here his approach is found:
Overall, we find that distribution related preferences vary in two approaches, more super-ports of equality are obtained when the pre-pre-perspective applies. While pre -post distribution preferences mainly reflect preferences for others to reach treatment and health benefits, pre -pre -distribution preference involves private option value, that is, knowledge of knowing that the knowledge of knowing that access to a specific treatment is ensured that one needs one. Our results suggest that the insurance perspective presented in this study with similar possibilities of expiry in future states provides a strong preference to equality compared to the pre -post perspective. It is most likely that the high alternative to know health care is available when available due to the price value.
These results seem very intangible, but the paper itself provides prime examples of moral trade that faces people. Should you provide more access to people for treatment or will people work better? Should you reach remedies for more serious diseases or should the amount of health benefits be the only thing that matters? You can read full paper Here,
