Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBishai, David
dc.date.accessioned2006-12-04T15:51:00Z
dc.date.available2006-12-04T15:51:00Z
dc.date.issued1998-07
dc.identifier.urihttp://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/973
dc.description.abstractBackground. U.S. health planners typically set health objectives without information about how much of their resources the American people wish to devote to improved health. Objectives. This paper indicates how ignoring attempts to measure how much of their funds Americans will trade for better health and equity could lead to allocations that may be efficient, but which could still lower welfare. Methods. A graphical depiction of the process of health production and welfare maximization is supplemented by a mathematical model. Philosophical and empirical obstacles to measurement of social preferences are discussed. Results. Knowing only how to improve public health with the most cost-effective techniques cannot inform planners about how to make tradeoffs between health and other sectors of the economy. Starting from a point of inefficient health production, it is shown that not every point of efficiency will improve the welfare of society. Conclusions. More information about social preferences between health and other public spending could help inform exercises such as Healthy People 2000. Decision-makers using such information should be apprised of its inherent limitations and assumptions.en_US
dc.format.extent516149 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherHopkins Population Centeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesHopkins Population Center Papers on Populationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWP98-04en_US
dc.subjectTHEORETICAL STUDIESen_US
dc.subjectHEALTH CAREen_US
dc.titleWhy Society Needs to Value Health Improvements in Dollarsen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record