Procedural justice in public healthcare resource allocation

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 119-127

  Tsuchiya, Aki ^a,b   Miguel, Luis Silva ^c   Edlin, Richard ^a   Wailoo, Allan ^a   Dolan, Paul ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c Research Center on the Portuguese Economy CISEP   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SURVEY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 24944587143     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11755652     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200504020-00006     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Coast J. Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods. Health Econ 2001; 10: 159-74
2. Daniels N. Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. Hastings Cent Rep 1996; 26: 10-2
3. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1992; 26: 303-50
4. Thibaut J, Walker L. Procedural justice, a psychological analysis. Hilsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erblaum Associates, 1975
5. Leventhal GS. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH, editors. Social exchange: advances in theory and practice. New York: Plenum Press, 1980
6. Lind EA, Tyler TR. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press, 1988
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=home [Accessed 2005 Aug 30]
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf [Accessed 2005 Aug 30]
9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraisal process: guidance for appellants (reference N0520) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.n ice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Guide_for_Appellants.pdf [Accessed 2005 Aug 30]
10. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: second report of session 2001-02. Volume I: report and proceedings of the Committee [online]. Available from URL: http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhealth/515/515.pdf [Accessed 2005 Aug 30]
11. Young HP. An axiomatization of Borda's rule. J Econ Theory 1974; 9: 43-52
12. Thurstone LL. The measurement of values. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 1960
13. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J Health Econ 2005; 24: 703-14
14. Hahn F. On some difficulties of the utilitarian economist. In: Sen A, Williams B, editors. Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982
15. Ng YK. Economic efficiency versus egalitarian rights. Kyklos 1988; 41: 215-37
16. Frey BS, Pommerehne WW. On the fairness of pricing: an empirical survey among the general population. J Econ Behav Organ 1993; 20: 295-307
17. Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F. Fair siting procedures: an empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics. J Policy Anal Manage 1996; 15: 353-76
18. Sen A. Why health equity? Health Econ 2002; 11: 659-66