 At the level of policy-making, Asada (2013: 40–41) reviews two considerations that favor defining health inequalities across individuals and one that favors defining them across social groups. She also proposes a novel approach that attempts to combine the merits of both. A definition across individuals is favored by the fact that data collected on that basis lends itself easily to international comparisons (see also Murray, Gakidou, &amp; Frenk 1999), whereas data on health inequalities defined across groups can only be compared between two countries if both countries have conceived and operationalized the relevant groups in the same way (which they often have not). Furthermore, defining health inequalities across individuals does not require any balancing or summary operation in order to yield conclusions about overall inequalities in health, whereas a definition across groups only yields conclusions about overall inequalities when combined with data from other relevant groups (e.g., when health inequalities across income groups are combined with health inequalities across educational groups). On the other hand, a definition across groups is favored by the fact that the social variable defining the group (e.g., income or education) often naturally suggests a target for policy intervention, whereas a definition across individuals suggests no such target and is thus “one step removed from policy” (Asada 2013: 41).