Browsing by Subject "Health equity"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Addressing Health Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review of Distributional and Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    (2021) Lewis, Ian Storm; Sinanovic, Edina
    Background Equity is rarely included in health economic evaluations, partly because the techniques for addressing equity have been inadequate. Since 2013 health economists have developed two competing health economic technologies: distributional costeffectiveness analysis (DCEA) and extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA). Both technologies represent a significant advance, and each provides a framework to address equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods A scoping literature review was used to identify and synthesise the relevant literature on incorporating equity concerns into economic evaluations. A second focused review identified literature which discussed or applied DCEA and ECEA. Key themes in the literature were identified using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Results The review revealed three key areas of difference between DCEA and ECEA: First, the analysis of trade-offs between improving health and reducing inequity; second, the analysis of financial impacts of health policies; and third, the incorporation of opportunity costs. ECEA can analyse financial risk protection while DCEA can analyse opportunity costs and trade-offs between improving equity and reducing health. ECEA is designed for low- and middle-income countries, whereas DCEA is better suited to developed health systems such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. To date, there have been 27 studies using ECEA and five studies using DCEA. Future developments for DCEA and ECEA include incorporating alternative methods to simplify the data requirements for the techniques, providing methods to assist decision makers to clarify their equity concerns, and improving the presentation of outcomes to make them accessible to non-specialists. Conclusions DCEA and ECEA are both economic frameworks which address equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis. This study examines and compares these two techniques in order to assist policymakers and decision makers to determine which of the two methods is best able to address their specific needs for their particular circumstances.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    The health impacts of extractive industry transnational corporations: a study of Rio Tinto in Australia and Southern Africa
    (BioMed Central, 2019-02-19) Anaf, Julia; Baum, Frances; Fisher, Matt; London, Leslie
    Background Operations of transnational corporations (TNCs) affect population health through production methods, shaping social determinants of health, or by influencing regulation of their activities. Research on community exposures to TNC practices and policies has been limited. Our research on extractive industries examined Rio Tinto in Australia and Southern Africa to test methods for assessing the health impacts of corporates in high and middle income jurisdictions with different regulatory frameworks. Methods We adapted existing Health Impact Assessment methods. Data identifying potential impacts were sourced through media analysis, document analysis, company literature and semi-structured interviews. The data were mapped against a corporate health impact assessment framework (CHIA) which included Rio Tinto’s political and business practices; productions; and workforce, social, environmental and economic conditions. Results Both positive and detrimental aspects of Rio Tinto’s operations were identified. Requirements imposed by Rio Tinto on its global supply chain are likely to have positive health impacts for workers. However, political lobbying and membership of representative organisations can influence government policy in ways that are unfavourable to health and equity. Positive impacts include provision of direct employment under decent working conditions, but countered by an increase in precariousness of employment. Commitments to upholding sustainable development principles are undermined by limited site remediation and other environmental impacts. Positive contributions are made to national and local economies but then undermined by business strategies that include tax minimisation. Conclusion Our study confirmed that it is possible to undertake a CHIA on an extractive industry TNC. The different methods provided sufficient information to understand the need to strengthen regulations that are conducive to health; the opportunity for Rio Tinto to extend corporate responsibility initiatives and support their social licence to operate; and for civil society actors to inform their advocacy towards improving health and equity outcomes from TNC operations.