Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview

Abstract: Rules and principles for guiding decision-making in the health care sector have been debated for decades. Here, we present a critical appraisal of the two most important paradigms in this respect: welfarism and extra-welfarism. While the former deals with the maximization of the overall su...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Brayan Viegas Seixas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz 2017-08-01
Series:Cadernos de Saúde Pública
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2017001003001&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-0d5570b01a274ab9b8078c398c8136a3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0d5570b01a274ab9b8078c398c8136a32020-11-24T23:43:27ZengEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo CruzCadernos de Saúde Pública1678-44642017-08-0133810.1590/0102-311x00014317S0102-311X2017001003001Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overviewBrayan Viegas SeixasAbstract: Rules and principles for guiding decision-making in the health care sector have been debated for decades. Here, we present a critical appraisal of the two most important paradigms in this respect: welfarism and extra-welfarism. While the former deals with the maximization of the overall sum of individual utilities as its primary outcome, the latter has been focusing on the maximization of the overall health status. We argue that welfarism has three main problems: (1) its central idea of overall sum of individual utilities does not capture societal values decisively relevant in the context of health; (2) the use of the Potential Pareto Improvement brings an unresolvable separation between efficiency and equity; and (3) individual utility may not be a good measure in the health sector, given that individuals might value things that diminish their overall health. In turn, the extra-welfarist approach is criticized regarding four main limitations: (1) the advocated expansion of the evaluative space, moving from utility to health, may have represented in reality a narrowing of it; (2) it operates using non-explicit considerations of equity; (3) it still holds the issue of “inability to desire” of unprivileged people being considered the best judges of weighing the criteria used to building the health measures; and (4) there is controversial empirical evidence about society members’ values that support its assumptions. Overall, both paradigms show significant weaknesses, but the debate has still been within the realm of welfare economics, and even the new approaches to resource allocation in health care systems appear to be unable to escape from these boundaries.http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2017001003001&lng=en&tlng=enResource AllocationHealth Care RationingHealth EconomicsDecision Making
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Brayan Viegas Seixas
spellingShingle Brayan Viegas Seixas
Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
Cadernos de Saúde Pública
Resource Allocation
Health Care Rationing
Health Economics
Decision Making
author_facet Brayan Viegas Seixas
author_sort Brayan Viegas Seixas
title Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
title_short Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
title_full Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
title_fullStr Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
title_full_unstemmed Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
title_sort welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview
publisher Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz
series Cadernos de Saúde Pública
issn 1678-4464
publishDate 2017-08-01
description Abstract: Rules and principles for guiding decision-making in the health care sector have been debated for decades. Here, we present a critical appraisal of the two most important paradigms in this respect: welfarism and extra-welfarism. While the former deals with the maximization of the overall sum of individual utilities as its primary outcome, the latter has been focusing on the maximization of the overall health status. We argue that welfarism has three main problems: (1) its central idea of overall sum of individual utilities does not capture societal values decisively relevant in the context of health; (2) the use of the Potential Pareto Improvement brings an unresolvable separation between efficiency and equity; and (3) individual utility may not be a good measure in the health sector, given that individuals might value things that diminish their overall health. In turn, the extra-welfarist approach is criticized regarding four main limitations: (1) the advocated expansion of the evaluative space, moving from utility to health, may have represented in reality a narrowing of it; (2) it operates using non-explicit considerations of equity; (3) it still holds the issue of “inability to desire” of unprivileged people being considered the best judges of weighing the criteria used to building the health measures; and (4) there is controversial empirical evidence about society members’ values that support its assumptions. Overall, both paradigms show significant weaknesses, but the debate has still been within the realm of welfare economics, and even the new approaches to resource allocation in health care systems appear to be unable to escape from these boundaries.
topic Resource Allocation
Health Care Rationing
Health Economics
Decision Making
url http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2017001003001&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT brayanviegasseixas welfarismandextrawelfarismacriticaloverview
_version_ 1725501566813732864