Consider first the use-per-need view.
The use-per-need approach is quite sensitive to what actual measures of both need and utilization are used.
Similarly, use-per-need rates may vary with suspect variables like income or race and yet not indicate any inequity of access, contrary to the use-per-need formulation.
Unfortunately, this argument from function falls short of providing a basis for the use-per-need view.
In the next section, we shall return to seek more persuasive foundations for the use-per-need view.
Where distorting factors mean that utilization of services is not determined by need, the use-per-need view judges the access inequitable.
Most cloud instances have larger shared caches and are rented on a per-need basis, often for short durations to handle spikes in the load.
The problem facing the 'market' proponent thus appears to be the other side of the coin from the problem facing the use-per-need account.
However, even the modified market view allows for many inequalities of access to care that would be judged inequitable by the use-per-need view.
Another criticism of the use-per-need account is the claim that uniformity in utilization rates is not even a necessary condition for equity of access.
