IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/99cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WHO Decides What is Fair? International HIV Treatment Guidelines, Social Value Judgements and Equitable Provision of Lifesaving Antiretroviral Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Revill

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Miqdad Asaria

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Andrew Phillips

    (Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK)

  • Diana M Gibb

    (Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK)

  • Charles F Gilks

    (School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia)

Abstract

The new 2013 WHO Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) make aspirational recommendations for ART delivery in low and middle income countries. Comprehensive assessments of available evidence were undertaken and the recommendations made are likely to improve individual health outcomes. However feasibility was downplayed, the Guidelines represent high-cost policy options not all of which are compatible with the core public health principles of decentralization; task-shifting; and a commitment to universality. Critically, their impact on equity and the population-level distribution of health outcomes were not fully considered. We analyze the likely distribution of health outcomes resulting from alternative ways of realising the 2013 Guidelines and assess practicality, feasibility and health attainment amongst different sections of the population in the context of financial and human resource constraints. Claim can be made that direct interpretation of the Guidelines follows a "human rights" based approach in seeking to provide individual patients with the best alternatives amongst those available on the basis of current evidence. However, there lies a basic conflict between this and "consequentialist" public health based approaches that provide more equal population-level outcomes. When determining how to respond to the 2013 Guidelines and fairly allocate scarce lifesaving resources, national policymakers must carefully consider the distribution of outcomes and the underpinning social value judgements required to inform policy choice. It is important to consider whose values should determine what is a just distribution of health outcomes. The WHO Guidelines committees are well placed to compile evidence on the costs and effects of health care alternatives. However, their mandate for making distributional social value judgements remains unclear.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Revill & Miqdad Asaria & Andrew Phillips & Diana M Gibb & Charles F Gilks, 2014. "WHO Decides What is Fair? International HIV Treatment Guidelines, Social Value Judgements and Equitable Provision of Lifesaving Antiretroviral Therapy," Working Papers 099cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:99cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP99_International_HIV_Guidelines_ART.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony J. Culyer, 2006. "The bogus conflict between efficiency and vertical equity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1155-1158, November.
    2. Katharina Hauck & Rebecca Shaw & Peter C. Smith, 2002. "Reducing avoidable inequalities in health: a new criterion for setting health care capitation payments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 667-677, December.
    3. Williams, Alan & Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Equity in health," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 35, pages 1863-1910, Elsevier.
    4. Culyer, A. J. & Wagstaff, Adam, 1993. "Equity and equality in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 431-457, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandiford, P. & Vivas Consuelo, D. & Rouse, P. & Bramley, D., 2018. "The trade-off between equity and efficiency in population health gain: Making it real," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 136-144.
    2. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schokkaert, Erik, 2009. "Unfair inequalities in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 73-90, January.
    3. Katherine Cuff & Jeremiah Hurley & Stuart Mestelman & Andrew Muller & Robert Nuscheler, 2012. "Public and private health‐care financing with alternate public rationing rules," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 83-100, February.
    4. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.
    5. Anand, Paul, 2003. "The integration of claims to health-care: a programming approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 731-745, September.
    6. Núñez Ares, José & de Vries, Harwin & Huisman, Dennis, 2016. "A column generation approach for locating roadside clinics in Africa based on effectiveness and equity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1002-1016.
    7. Costa-Font, J.; & Cowell, F.;, 2019. "Incorporating Inequality Aversion in Health-Care Priority Setting," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 19/04, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Katherine Cuff & Jeremiath Hurley & Stuart Mestelman & Andrew Muller & Robert Nuscheler, 2007. "Public and Private Health Care Financing with Alternate Public Rationing," Department of Economics Working Papers 2007-07, McMaster University.
    9. Lane, Haylee & Sarkies, Mitchell & Martin, Jennifer & Haines, Terry, 2017. "Equity in healthcare resource allocation decision making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 11-27.
    10. Núñez Ares, J. & de Vries, H. & Huisman, D., 2015. "A Column Generation Approach for Locating Roadside Clinics in Africa based upon Effectiveness and Equity," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2015-19, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    11. Marlies Ahlert & Katja Funke & Lars Schwettmann, 2013. "Thresholds, productivity, and context: an experimental study on determinants of distributive behaviour," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 957-984, April.
    12. Nagy, Balázs, 2010. "Egy hiányzó láncszem?. Forráselosztás a magyar egészségügyben [Resource allocation in Hungarian health care - is there a missing link?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 337-353.
    13. Franziska Brendel & Lisa Einhaus & Franziska Then, 2021. "Resource scarcity and prioritization decisions in medical care: A lab experiment with heterogeneous patient types," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 470-477, February.
    14. Katharina Hauck & Rebecca Shaw & Peter C. Smith, 2002. "Reducing avoidable inequalities in health: a new criterion for setting health care capitation payments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 667-677, December.
    15. Bleichrodt, Han & Doctor, Jason & Stolk, Elly, 2005. "A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 655-678, July.
    16. Alessandro Balestrino & Lisa Grazzini & Annalisa Luporini, 2017. "A normative justification of compulsory education," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 537-567, April.
    17. G Oskrochi & Ahmed Bani-Mustafa & Y Oskrochi, 2018. "Factors affecting psychological well-being: Evidence from two nationally representative surveys," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    18. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    19. Antonio Abatemarco & Massimo Aria & Sergio Beraldo & Michela Collaro, 2023. "Measuring Access and Inequality of Access to Health Care: a Policy-Oriented Decomposition," CSEF Working Papers 666, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    20. Paul Allanson & Dennis Petrie, 2014. "Understanding The Vertical Equity Judgements Underpinning Health Inequality Measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(11), pages 1390-1396, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:99cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.