Journal
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 659-670Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.10.012
Keywords
Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality; Concentration index; Binary variables
Funding
- Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) [2012-0419]
- FAS [2006-1660]
- Government Grant for Clinical Research (ALF)
- Region Sickle (Gerdtham)
- European Commission [QLK6-CT-2001-00360, RII-CT-2006-062193, CIT5-CT-2005-028857]
- US National Institute on Aging [U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01, OGHA 04-064, R21 AG025169]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This article discusses measurement of socioeconomic inequalities in the prevalence of a health condition, in response to the recent exchange between Guido Erreygers and Adam Wagstaff, in which they discuss the merits of their own corrections to the frequently used concentration index. We first reconcile their debate and discuss the value judgments implicit in their indices. Next, we provide a formal definition of the previously undefined value judgment in Wagstaff's correction. Finally, we show empirically that the choice of index matters, as illustrated by comparisons between countries using data from the European Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available