Public Health Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Public Health Forum

A Forum to discuss Public Health Issues in Pakistan

Welcome to the most comprehensive portal on Community Medicine/ Public Health in Pakistan. This website contains content rich information for Medical Students, Post Graduates in Public Health, Researchers and Fellows in Public Health, and encompasses all super specialties of Public Health. The site is maintained by Dr Nayyar R. Kazmi

Latest topics

» Polio Endemic Countries on the Globe
EQUITY EmptySat Apr 08, 2023 8:31 am by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan

» Video for our MPH colleagues. Must watch
EQUITY EmptySun Aug 07, 2022 11:56 pm by The Saint

» Salam
EQUITY EmptySun Jan 31, 2021 7:40 am by mr dentist

» Feeling Sad
EQUITY EmptyTue Feb 04, 2020 8:27 pm by mr dentist

» Look here. Its 2020 and this is what we found
EQUITY EmptyMon Jan 27, 2020 7:23 am by izzatullah

» Sad News
EQUITY EmptyFri Jan 11, 2019 6:17 am by ameen

» Pakistan Demographic Profile 2018
EQUITY EmptyFri May 18, 2018 9:42 am by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan

» Good evening all fellows
EQUITY EmptyWed Apr 25, 2018 10:16 am by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan

» Urdu Poetry
EQUITY EmptySat Apr 04, 2015 12:28 pm by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan

Navigation

Affiliates

Statistics

Our users have posted a total of 8425 messages in 1135 subjects

We have 439 registered users

The newest registered user is Dr. Arshad Nadeem Awan


    EQUITY

    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan
    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan


    Pisces Number of posts : 685
    Age : 56
    Location : WHO Country Office Islamabad
    Job : National Coordinator for Polio Surveillance
    Registration date : 2007-02-23

    EQUITY Empty EQUITY

    Post by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:32 pm

    Equity is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly as to taxation or welfare economics. In welfare economics, equity may be distinguished from economic efficiency in overall evaluation of social welfare. Although 'equity' has broader uses, it may be posed as a counterpart to economic inequality in yielding a "good" distribution of welfare. It has been studied in experimental economics as inequity aversion. In public finance horizontal equity is the idea that people with a similar ability to pay taxes should pay the same or similar amounts. It is related to the concept of tax neutrality or the idea that the tax system should not discriminate between similar things or people, or unduly distort behavior. Vertical equity is the idea that people with a greater ability to pay taxes should pay more. If they pay more strictly in proportion to their income, this is known as a proportional tax; if they pay an increasing proportion, this is termed a progressive tax, more associated with redistribution.
    In a Health Care Context
    [justify]Horizontal equity means providing equal healthcare to those who are the same in a relevant respect (such as having the same 'need'). Vertical equity means treating differently those who are different in relevant respects (such as having different 'need'), (Culyer, 1995).Health studies of equity seek to identifywhether particular social groups receive systematically different levels ofcare to other groups. They do this by making use of the "equitygauge".
    In fair division Equitability
    in fair division
    means that every person’s subjective valuation of their own share of some goods is the same. The surplus procedure (SP) achieves a more complex variant called proportional equitability. For more than 2 people a division cannot always both be equitable and envy-free.
    What does equity in health mean?
    The question of what rules should be used in determining access to health and health care has been hardly addressed in the public debate on the future of the health service. In the UK, as in other countries, the goal of efficiency (production of output using least cost-methods) has dominated official pronouncements. Far from the public view, however, another controversy has raged on the “other objective” of economic policy: equity, which implies that economic and social goods should be distributed fairly across individuals. Curiously, this debate has been characterised by an immense production of empirical facts and parallel disregard for the precise specification of equity objectives. However, unless the objectives of the health system are clearly specified, empirical research can do little to reveal the reasons why equity is important, the extent to which specific types of inequality are compatible with equity, how the concept should be measured and how efficient policies to achieve equity goals may be formulated and monitored. To answer these questions it is necessary to specify a normative framework that may guide positive analysis in relation to
    policy-specific equity objectives. The paper reviews a wide range of literature by firstly identifying a number of criteria for evaluating the diverse concepts of equity which have appeared in the literature. This is followed by a critical appraisal of six well-established approaches: egality, entitlement, the decent minimum, utilitarianism, Rawlsian maximin and envy-free allocations. All of these distribution rules are found wanting in some respect when applied to the health sector. Given the shortcomings of traditional concepts, health economists have proposed alternative and novel formulations. The two most important contributions to date are Le Grand’s notion of ‘equity as choice’ and the health maximisation account, associated with economists at York University. Though these rules afford important insights into the question of what equity in the health domain entails, they too are problematic. In the final part of the paper, an approach which strangely has been virtually ignored by economists and others who share an interest in the health-equity problem is examined. Sen’s ‘capabilities’ concept, it is argued, comes closer to achieving all the specified assessment criteria than any other formulation previously discussed. As such it could prove an effective framework within which to organise research and policy formation in the area of health and healthcare inequality. All European governments are seeking to reform their health care systems. All too often this process gives little attention to the primary goals of health care policy. Unless these are carefully specified and reforms carefully related to them, it will be impossible to determine whether changes in policy, such as those envisaged in the NHS White Paper, can meet the designated objectives.
    Read this also for better understanding;
    http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/spsw/staff/documents/WilliamsCookson2000_1.pdf
    (By Alan Williams and Richard Cookson)
    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan
    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan


    Pisces Number of posts : 685
    Age : 56
    Location : WHO Country Office Islamabad
    Job : National Coordinator for Polio Surveillance
    Registration date : 2007-02-23

    EQUITY Empty 10 best resources on . . . health equity

    Post by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:49 pm

    Source: http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/5/348
    An astute bureaucratic pundit named Rufus Miles once observed that ‘where you stand depends on where you sit’ This ‘Miles Law’ deserves to be kept centrally in mind when considering not only traditional bureaucratic behaviour, but also health equity; for one's judgment about what's ‘best’ in the health equity area is unavoidably shaped by his/her institutional experience, background and interests.Rather than challenge such an unfortunately well-established reality, better for an author to admit at the outset just where (s)he has sat. This author must accordingly confess to having long sat at operationally-oriented external assistance agencies rather than at academic institutions. The
    consequence has been a preference for pieces that, in the tradition of this journal, can help shape health policy and planning; rather than for the many valuable but more abstract or technical readings on health equity that deal with basic concepts or advanced statistics. It further reflects the technocratic outlook, and orientation toward the economic dimensions of equity that comes from having long been associated with one particular institution, the World Bank; rather than the more explicitly ethical outlook of someone sitting at, say, an activist non-governmental organization more obviously concerned with social justice. However, not even the most unacademic or technocratic observer of the health equity scene can deny completely the relevance of basic concepts. For instance, one really does need to understand the meaning of the term ‘health equity’ before getting too far into a discussion of it. For this, one obvious source would be the many excellent equity writings of Nobel Laureate economist-philosopher Amartya Sen, such as his recent keynote address to the International Health Economics Association that deals directly with health equity issues . But for practitioners, there's another piece that stands out for its unusually accessible explanation. This is The concepts and principles of equity in health, by Margaret Whitehead, which appeared in 1992. It is perhaps best known for putting forth and explaining what remains the standard working definition of health equity: ‘differences in health that are not only unnecessary and avoidable, but in addition unfair and unjust.’ Many have since elaborated on this basic theme (Kawachi et al. 2002; Braveman 2006; Starfield 2006; Loewenson undated) and Whitehead has herself recently produced an update that well deserves reading (Whitehead and Dahlgren 2006). But such efforts can be more persuasively described as refinements to rather than as significant departures from the original Whitehead definition. Another important, conceptually-oriented reading from the 1990s is one that has not yet been written. Rather, it exists as brief sections of several papers and presentations by Timothy Evans and Hilary Brown, usually titled something like PROGRESS. This is an acronym, with each letter standing for one of the several dimensions of health inequality that the authors consider important: inequality by place of residence, by race, by occupation, by gender, by religion, by education, by socio-economic status, and by social capital. Much further development will be required before this or any other list can be considered definitive. But even in its present, rudimentary form, it has attracted a significant following in organizations like the International Clinical Epidemiology Network (WHO 2004), the Cochrane Collaboration (Tugwell et al. 2006; Doull et al. 2007a,b) and elsewhere (Chowdhury 2005), whose members regularly cite it as an important reminder that health equity has many significant dimensions beyond the gender and economic ones that have come to dominate the literature.
    A furtherpiece from the last century is arguably still thebest when it comes to the thorny question of measuring the healthinequalities that are centrally important to equity. This is the1991 article On the measurement of inequalities in health,by Adam Wagstaff, Pierella Paci and Eddy van Doorslaer. It is ofvalue particularly for its unusually lucid – so lucid that most ofit can be understood even by non-statisticians – discussion of theseveral statistical measures most commonly used to measure inequalities in health,especially with respect to economic status. At least equally important is its presentationof a measure known as the concentration index, which has risen to prominenceover the years since, and to some significant degreebecause of, the article's appearance. [For those sceptical ofanything so ancient, a solid more recent piece that includes a somewhat largerset of measures is ‘Measuring Disparities in Health’,by Anand et al. (2001). Measuring inequalities and inequities is one thing; explaining them is another. Those looking for plausible explanations of levels and trends in inequalities will want to consult the well-known 2000 piece by Cesar Victora and his colleagues on Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. In it, the authors develop and illustrate the operation of what they call the ‘inverse equity hypothesis’. According to this thesis, ‘... new interventions will initially reach those of higher socioeconomic status and only later affect the poor. This results in an early increase in the inequity ratios for coverage, morbidity and mortality indicators, followed later by a reduction when the poor gain greater access to the interventions and the rich reach minimum achievable levels for morbidity and mortality beyond which there are unlikely to be substantial further improvements.’ This thesis, recognizable as the epidemiological variant of the famous ‘Kuznets hypothesis’ concerning trends in income distribution with economic growth (Kuznets 1955), is presented as an offspring of an earlier, equally important health equity theory known as the ‘inverse care law’, which maintains that ‘the availability of good health care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served’ (Tudor Hart 1971).
    Anotherreading that is valuable in part because of its explanation of the reasons for inequalities is Michael Marmot's Health in an unequal world. Asignificant portion of Marmot's wide-ranging presentation is devoted toan articulate presentation of the argument for which he has become well known: thatpoor health among disadvantaged groups results not just fromlack of material resources (food, housing, water, etc.)but also from such psychological factors as lack of empowerment. Earlier, Marmothad identified such psychological factors as a principal source of thesurprising class gradient in health he had found among British civil servants, none ofwhom were lacking in the basic material resources required for good health.
    Now, he has cautiously extended it to poor countries as well, suggesting the possibility that psychological as well as material factors contribute to the social and economic gradients found there. Aside from the inherent interest of this dual-cause explanatory model, it is also
    noteworthy as the framework adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on the Social Determinants of Health,1 chaired by Marmot, whose report is due out next year. But this is not all: Marmot's piece is equally worth reading for the clear and up-to-date review of global- and country-level health inequalities that it contains. Turning from the general to the specific, one quickly comes to thedimension of health inequity that has perhaps attracted themost attention: namely, gender. At the top of themountain of available readings on this topic is theoverview piece Gender, inequity, and health: theintersections, by Piroska Östlin, Asha George and Gita Sen. It is in two parts:the first articulately summarizing theevidence on gender inequities in health; the second discussing the policies available to reducethose inequities. Of particular interest, at least toempirically-oriented readers, is the former, which deals with a range offascinating as well as important issues, such as the conundrum of women's simultaneously greater longevity and poorer health.(An added plus: the reading constitutes part ofan important volume on health equity that contains other chapters ofinterest, such as the Anand et al. reading referred to above.)
    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan
    Dr Abdul Aziz Awan


    Pisces Number of posts : 685
    Age : 56
    Location : WHO Country Office Islamabad
    Job : National Coordinator for Polio Surveillance
    Registration date : 2007-02-23

    EQUITY Empty 10 best resources on . . . health equit.....continued

    Post by Dr Abdul Aziz Awan Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:51 pm

    If gender is losing its lead as the most frequently studied dimension of health inequity, it is in no small part because of the methodological finding reported in Estimating wealth effects withoutexpenditure data – or tears: an application to educational enrollments inStates of India, by economists Deon Filmer and LantPritchett. Simply stated, the finding is that household assets are closelyenough related to household consumption/expenditures for the
    former to serve as a reasonable proxy for the latter. This had two important consequences. The first is that it has allowed distributional analyses of many important household data sets, such as thosedescribed in the next section, which contain information aboutassets but not consumption or expenditures. Second, since information abouthousehold assets is far simpler to collect than data onconsumption/expenditures, the finding has made it feasible to add an economic equitydimension to future health surveys. In brief, the seemingly daunting task ofmeasuring household economic status has suddenly become manageable; and theresult has been a sharp rise in the number of studies reporting on healthinequities across economic classes. Among the extant household health data sets that have been analyzed using techniquesbased on the Filmer-Pritchett approach are ones collected by theUSAID-supported Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) programme, the UNICEF multiple indicator cluster surveys (MICS), and the WHO World Health Surveys (WHO/WHS). Which of theseshould be considered ‘best’ is probably a matter of taste and thetype of health issue in which one is interested (since the three data sets cover somewhat different issues). Themost fully documented of the three is a set of 56 country studies, covering 100+ health indicators in each, based on DHS data, and undertaken cooperatively by the World Bank and the DHS secretariat. These have appeared under the title of Socio-economic differences in
    health, nutrition, and population by Davidson R Gwatkin and colleagues, and are available in electronic form from the World Bank poverty/health website2 or (while supplies last) as hard copies upon request via that site. Tables containing economic and other equity-relevant breakdowns from the other two data sets are also available electronically,at the UNICEF/MICS site3 and WHO/WHS site.4
    While analyses based on data sets like these can be quite useful for identifying previouslyunrecognized health inequalities, they are of only limited help in finding remedies to them. Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to move beyond identification to remedy, at least in the hopeful eyes of its organizers, is a recent project titled. Reaching the poor with health, nutrition, and population services: what works, what doesn't and why, coordinated by Davidson R Gwatkin, Adam Wagstaff and Abdo S Yazbeck. The project constitutes aneffort to apply to health a modified version of an assessment technique called benefit-incidence analysis. This technique, originally developed by public finance economists, is the equity analogue of cost-effective analysis forefficiency. (For example, cost-effectiveness analysis is oriented toward determining, say, how many immunizations one can get for a given amount of money; benefit-incidence analysis is concerned with measuring how a given number of immunizations is distributed across groups in society.) At the project's core is a large number of case studies presented at the project's 2004 conference, published in the volume that constitutes the project's principal report, and/or available on the project website. Among the project's limitations, at least in the eyes of some, must be counted its narrow, technocratic focus on specific health projects/policy measures, and corresponding lack of concern with such larger issues of political economy that are arguably more important for dealing with health inequities. While the Reaching the Poor studies point to ways of lessening health inequalities by helping the poor achieve better health, they and the other readings thus far cited largely ignore another important equity need: preventing the increased poverty to which poor health can lead through high household health expenditures for catastrophic illness. The nature and magnitude of the challenge is well outlined in What are the economic consequences for households of illness and of paying for health care in low- and middle-income country contexts? by Diane McIntyre and colleagues. They deal with issues that have recently risen to the fore with increasing awareness of the prominence of regressive out-of-pocket payments for health in many poor countries; and with the highly controversial advocacy of such payments (especially user fees at government facilities) by external assistance agencies like the World Bank. Of particular interest are the readings’ central sections that explain the approaches taken by researchers in this area, summarize their findings thus far, and carefully note the several important limitations in the approaches taken and the resulting need for care in interpreting the findings.

    Sponsored content


    EQUITY Empty Re: EQUITY

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:23 pm