Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal
This article develops two inference procedures to calculate the inequality aversion and alpha parameters of a health-related social welfare function with constant elasticity (CES-HRSWF) using stated preferences. Based on the relative concept of inequality, a range of values were proposed for the trade-offs between improving total population health and reducing health inequalities.
A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 422 college students in Portugal. Respondents faced three hypothetical allocation scenarios where they needed to decide between two health programmes that assign different health gains to two anonymous sub-groups of the population and to two sub-groups identified by socioeconomic class. Combinations of the median response to these three questions were used to estimate the parameters of the CES-HRSWF.
Findings suggest that the quantification of the efficiency–equality trade-off is not independent of the inference procedure used. Plausible values for the inequality aversion and for the alpha parameters were obtained ranging from 2.24 to 4.85 and from 0.5 to 0.58, respectively.
Respondents revealed some aversion to health inequality. However, the extent of this aversion seems to be sensitive to (1) the identification of the groups by occupation status, (2) the size of the health gain, and (3) the inference procedure used.
Data Availability Statement
Authors can confirm that all relevant data are included in the article and/or its supplementary information files. The authors declare that (the/all other) data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article (and its supplementary information files).
MP conceived and designed the study and drafted the first draft of the paper. AB analysed the data and reviewed and suggested the structure of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the revision of the manuscript for intellectual content and approved its submission for publication.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Micaela Pinho and Anabela Botelho disclose no receipt of any financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
Micaela Pinho and Anabela Botelho declare they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before being included in the study.
- 2.Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. In: Layard A, Glaister S, editors. Cost-benefit analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994 [(reprinted from Journal of Health Economics, 10 (1991) 21–41, with corrections)].Google Scholar
- 4.Dolan P, Tsuchiya A, Smith P, Shaw R, Williams A. Determining the parameters in a social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health. Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper Series. Ref 02/2. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; 2002.Google Scholar
- 7.Edlin R, Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. Measuring the societal value of lifetime health. Sheffield Economics Research Papers. Series 2009010; 2009.Google Scholar
- 9.Shaw R, Dolan P, Tsuchiya A, Williams A, Smith P, Burrows R. Development of a questionnaire to elicit public preferences regarding health inequalities. York: Centre for health Economics, University of York; 2001.Google Scholar
- 16.Ferreira P, Silva P. Diferenças sociais na morte: a evolução do número de óbitos na população activa Portuguesa (1981–2001). Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública. 2007;25(1):70–84.Google Scholar
- 18.Volkof S, Thebaud-Mony A. Santé au travail: l’inégalité des parcours. In: Leclerc A, et al., editors. Les Inégalités socials de santé. Paris: Inserm/La Découverte; 2000.Google Scholar
- 19.INE-Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Estatísticas Demográficas 2012. Lisboa; 2012.Google Scholar
- 21.Abásolo I, Tsuchiya A. Understanding preference for egalitarian policies in health: are age and sex determinants? Appl Econ. 2008;1:1–11.Google Scholar
- 24.Mueller D. Public choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.Google Scholar
- 29.Rabin M. Psychology and economics. J Econ Lit. 1998;36(1):11–46.Google Scholar
- 30.Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.Google Scholar