Procedural Justice in Public Healthcare Resource Allocation

Abstract

A robust ranking of five of the six procedural characteristics was found. The ranking for voice was sensitive to the question format, which has methodological implications. Around a quarter to a third of respondents regarded a procedural characteristic to have entirely intrinsic value.

Estimating the Cost of Providing Foundational Public Health Services

“…Type 2 actions are conceptually linked with principles of procedural justice, which stress that how decisions are made are at least as important as what decisions are made in shaping the implementation and outcomes of these decisions (Tsuchiya et al. ).…”

Process matters: petitions systems in Britain’s legislatures

“…It draws on theories of procedure which have been applied to a variety of different fields, including law (for example, Harlow and Rawlings, 2014;Craig, 2012;Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978; psychology (for example, Blader & Tyler, 2003;Folger, 1977;Lind et al, 1990); business and management (for example, Groth & Gilliland, 2001;Maguire & Lind, 2003); political science (for example, Carman, 2010;Grimes, 2006); social policy (for example, Riddell, 2003) including healthcare resource allocation (Tsuchiya et al, 2005); and criminology (for example, Hough et al, 2010). It encompasses a range of ideas and characteristics as discussed below.…”

“…In some cases, usually where the issue has wider public interest, petitioners have the opportunity to present their information to the petitions committee, or to take part in a roundtable discussion, which provides them with additional opportunities for 'voice' (see, for example, Tsuchiya et al, 2005). Lane (1988, cited in Lind et al, 1990) underlines the importance of this when he describes 'the opportunity to be heard as a 'dignity good' that citizens value in government procedures', whilst Lind and Tyler (1988) highlight relational concerns such as 'status recognition' as also playing a role here.…”

Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism

“…Some welfarists have sought to broaden analysis in such a way as to allow that individual utility can be derived from processes, procedures and freedoms because they may have the direct characteristics of pleasantness or unpleasantness, or because processes themselves may be consequences (for example, of prior decisions reflecting preferences), or may have consequences-consequences that might be appraised in either welfarist or non-welfarist ways but that are still consequentialist. A growing body of literature, both in the general economics literature as well as in the health economics literature, uses procedural or process utility (Hahn, 1982;Benz and Stutzer, 2003;Frey et al, 2004;Brouwer et al, 2005;Tsuchiya et al, 2005). Such considerations of procedural utility fit the welfarist economic framework well and indicates that narrowly defined consequentialism is not intrinsic to welfarist economics, though welfarist economics considers only procedures and consequences that have utility consequences rooted in the preferences of individuals.…”