Vertical equity: weighting outcomes? or establishing procedures?
References (18)
- et al.
Maximising health benefits versus egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues
Social Science and Medicine
(1995) Equity, envy and efficiency
Journal of Economic Theory
(1974)And now for vertical equity? Some concerns arising from Aboriginal health in Australia?
Health Economics
(1996)Ethics and efficiency in the provision of health care
- et al.
Examining preferences for health gains
Health Care Analysis
(1995) Inequality of health services is, in general, desirable
Cited by (70)
Equitable reverse auctions supporting household energy investments
2023, Energy PolicyHealth Insurance Systems: An International Comparison
2021, Health Insurance Systems: An International ComparisonStrategic and user-driven transition scenarios: Toward a low carbon society, encompassing the issues of sustainability and societal equity in Japan.
2018, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :In this study, social equity is defined according to the results of two surveys undertaken in Japan, one directed toward energy policy experts to assess equity factors and their importance, and another directed toward the public, measuring specific equity issues such as household burden and participation, alongside the overall importance of social equity when compared to environmental and economic concerns. In the quantitative assessment of sustainability, social equity is considered to improve when the burdens and benefits of energy policies and energy system outcomes are shared fairly, such that the gap between lower and higher income households is reduced (often described as vertical equity; Mooney and Jan 1997). This definition of social equity is derived from the energy justice concept (Jenkins et al., 2016), specifically on the core tenets of distributive justice (distribution of burdens and benefits), and procedural justice (meaningful participation in decision making; Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015).
Proposing an evaluation framework for energy policy making incorporating equity: Applications in Australia
2016, Energy Research and Social ScienceCitation Excerpt :This future-oriented conservation focus was reinforced in a survey of acceptable risk and social values of water allocations which again identified strong support for intergenerational equity, and a preference for evidence based policies and plans managed for the public good [61]. In addition, when health care decision makers were surveyed on desirable allocation of health gains a majority favoured the young, those of poor health and, where preference was specified, those of a lower socio economic status [47]. It should be noted that in some cases these preferences are assessed prior to implementation of policies and may be representative of respondent’s desires rather than an approximation of their actual actions.
The impacts of decentralisation on health-related equity: A systematic review of the evidence
2016, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :It further implies financing of health care according to one's ability to pay. In health systems research, the focus is mostly on horizontal equity to the neglect of vertical equity [45]. Health-related equity is often measured in terms of access and financing of health care [46], and also in terms of health status or outcomes [38].
Going beyond horizontal equity: An analysis of health expenditure allocation across geographic areas in Mozambique
2015, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :By contrast, in LMICs, where more important differences in access to services exist across geographic areas, morbidity, mortality, or socio-economic deprivation, are used as proxies for healthcare need. In LMICs, RAFs can contribute to promote vertical equity (differential treatment of individuals or groups in different circumstances) by allocating expenditure proportionally, or even progressively, to need, to accelerate health improvements among the neediest (Diderichsen, 2004; McIntyre et al., 2007; Mooney, 2000; Mooney and Jan, 1997). Although helpful in promoting changes in resource allocation patterns, the RAF approach lacks consideration for how resources allocated to local health administrations ultimately reach the intended beneficiaries (Sheldon and Smith, 2000).