Social tariffs and democratic choice—Do population‐based health state values reflect the will of the people?

Schneider, P.

doi:10.1002/hec.4179

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But perhaps the most compelling argument for aggregative approaches is the ostensibly straightforward resolution of plurality: aggregation produces determinate results, an answer emerges. More problematically, plurality is hidden behind averages and the normative basis of different types of aggregation is rarely discussed ( Devlin et al, 2017 ; Schneider, 2021 ). Although transparency is listed as a strength, as aggregative methods become more complex they also become more opaque to the non-specialist (few non-economists would claim detailed knowledge of the cost benefit analyses underpinning transport safety policy, for example).…”

Section: Defining Terms: Public(s) Value(s) and Priority Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

Baker

Mason

McHugh

et al. 2021

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context ‘What does ‘The Public’ think?’ is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality , is to be expected. Methods This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma – the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses. Findings Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms. Conclusions Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

show abstract

Section: Defining Terms: Public(s) Value(s) and Priority Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

Baker

Mason

McHugh

et al. 2021

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Health System Performance, Disaster Response and Political Identities During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

HO,

OKAFOR,

YAN

2024

Singapore Econ. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we developed a model to assess the government’s disaster response during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring variations across jurisdictions dominated by different political identities in the United States. The model defines an individual’s payoff as a positive function of his/her income and the government’s disaster response. The individual is more prone to wear a mask if the government is more responsive to the disaster during the pandemic, and there can be a lower income loss for the individual during the pandemic when he/she has higher compliance to the government’s order of face mask. Utilizing this model, we derive the government’s disaster response to be positively correlated with the impact of COVID-19 deaths on masking behavior and negatively correlated with the change of the death toll relative to income. This allows us to evaluate the unobserved disaster response of the government explicitly using regression results. We compare the government’s disaster response across jurisdictions dominated by different political identities in the United States. The results highlight a more resilient disaster response in Democratic states, translating into superior health system performance compared to their Republican counterparts. These findings emphasize the crucial role of policies designed to strengthen disaster response, especially in addressing collective action problems such as those posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate crises.

show abstract

Social tariffs and democratic choice—Do population‐based health state values reflect the will of the people?

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

Health System Performance, Disaster Response and Political Identities During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About