Article info
PDFJustice
Paper
Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle
- Correspondence to Mr Samuel Altmann, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UQ, UK; samuel.altmann{at}wadh.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle
Publication history
- Received July 23, 2017
- Revised November 27, 2017
- Accepted December 6, 2017
- First published January 10, 2018.
Online issue publication
April 26, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (26 April 2018).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Other content recommended for you
- Capabilities and health
- The fair innings argument and increasing life spans
- Variability in the burden of disease estimates with or without age weighting and discounting: a methodological study
- Ethics and ENDS
- How economics could extend the scope of ethical discourse
- Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting
- Association between expedited review designations and the US or global burden of disease for drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2010–2019: a cross-sectional analysis
- Estimates of the 2016 global burden of kidney disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter air pollution
- The rationing debate: Rationing health care by age: The case against
- Global, regional and national burden of emergency medical diseases using specific emergency disease indicators: analysis of the 2015 Global Burden of Disease Study