Current differences in standards for allocating resources in the UK for, on the one hand, drugs and surgery, and on the other, chronic community and social care and social security lead to significant inequality.
Using a case study of hypothetical patients, it can be shown that adoption of new treatments, at high costs, to make marginal improvements in well-being would lead to much greater spending on some patients than on others with similar problems from different causes.
Inequality occurs because society tolerates tighter constraints on community and social care and social security than on acute care and drug budgets for new treatments.
Resolution of the inequality would involve establishing fairly the resources to increase the welfare of patients with different chronic diseases to some target level of welfare.
However, this would make overt the current rationing of community and social services and demonstrate the low levels of welfare of many with chronic diseases.
Governments concerned with lower taxation might prefer to avoid explosing such issues.
Mots-clés Pascal : Economie publique, Economie, Royaume Uni, Europe, Monde, Médecine, Recherche scientifique, Médecin, Pratique professionnelle, Traitement, Chronique, Maladie, Europe Ouest, Aspect politique, Géographie
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Public economy, Economy, United Kingdom, Europe, World, Medicine, Scientific research, Physician, Professional practice, Treatment, Chronic, Disease, Western Europe, Political aspect, Geography
Notice produite par :
ORS Auvergne - Observatoire Régional de la Santé d'Auvergne
Code Inist : 002B30A11. Création : 31/05/1999.