Dataset Information

Effect of specificity of health expenditure questions in the measurement of out-of-pocket health expenditure: evidence from field experimental study in Ghana.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effect of number of health items on out-of-pockets (OOPs) has been identified as a source of bias in measuring OOPs. Evidence comes mostly from cross-sectional comparison of different survey instruments to collect data on OOPs. Very few studies have attempted to validate these questionnaires, or distinguish bias arising from the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list versus specificity of OOPs questions.

Objectives

This study aims to estimate biases arising from the specificity of OOPs questions by comparing provider and household's information.

Methods

A generic questionnaire to collect data on household's OOPs was developed following the nomenclature proposed in division 6 of the classification of household final consumption 2018. The four categories within such division are used to set the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list, the specificity within each category was tailored to the design of the nationally representative living standard survey in Ghana where a field experiment was conducted to test the validity of different versions. Households were randomised to 11, 44 or 56 health items. Using data from provider records as the gold standard, we compared the mean positive OOPs, and estimated the mean ratio and variability in the ratio of household expenditures to provider data for the individual households using the Bland-Altman method of assessing agreement.

Findings

We found evidence of a difference in the overall mean ratio in the specificity for OOPs in inpatient care and medications. Within each of these two categories, a more detailed disaggregation yielded lower OOPs estimates than less detailed ones. The level of agreement between household and provider OOPs also decreased with increasing specificity of health items.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that, for inpatient care and medications, systematically decomposing OOPs categories into finer subclasses tend to produce lower OOPs estimates. Less detailed items produced more accurate and reliable OOPs estimates in the context of a rural setting.

SUBMITTER: Agorinya IA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rising non-communicable diseases (NCDs) coupled with increasing injuries have resulted in a significant increase in health spending in India. While out-of-pocket expenditure remains the major source of health care financing in India (two-thirds of the total health spending), the financial burden varies enormously across diseases and by the economic well-being of the households. Though prior studies have examined the variation in disease pattern, little is known about the financial risk to the families by type of diseases in India. In this context, the present study examines disease-specific out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and distress health financing.Unit data from the 71st round of the National Sample Survey Organization (2014) was used for this study. OOPE is defined as health spending on hospitalization net of reimbursement, and CHE is defined as household health spending exceeding 10% of household consumption expenditure. Distress health financing is defined as a situation when a household has to borrow money or sell their property/assets or when it gets contributions from friends/relatives to meet its health care expenses. OOPE was estimated for 16 selected diseases and across three broad categories- communicable diseases, NCDs and injuries. Multivariate logistic regression was used to understand the determinants of distress financing and CHE.Mean OOPE on hospitalization was INR 19,210 and was the highest for cancer (INR 57,232) followed by heart diseases (INR 40,947). About 28% of the households incurred CHE and faced distress financing. Among all the diseases, cancer caused the highest CHE (79%) and distress financing (43%). More than one-third of the inpatients reported distressed financing for heart diseases, neurological disorders, genito urinary problems, musculoskeletal diseases, gastro-intestinal problems and injuries. The likelihood of incurring distress financing was 3.2 times higher for those hospitalized for cancer (OR 3.23; 95% CI: 2.62-3.99) and 2.6 times for tuberculosis patients (OR 2.61; 95% CI: 2.06-3.31). A large proportion of households who had reported distress financing also incurred CHE.Free treatment for cancer and heart diseases is recommended for the vulnerable sections of the society. Risk-pooling and social security mechanisms based on contributions from both households as well as the central and state governments can reduce the financial burden of diseases and avert households from distress health financing.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Back pain impacts on a significant proportion of the Australian population over the life course and has high prevalence rates among women, particularly in older age. Back pain care is characterised by multiple practitioner and self-prescribed treatment options, and the out-of-pocket costs associated with consultations and self-prescribed treatments have not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the extent of health care practitioner consultations and self-prescribed treatment for back pain care among Australian women, and to assess the self-reported costs associated with such usage. METHODS: Survey of 1,310 women (response rate 80.9%) who reported seeking help for back pain from the '1946-51 cohort' of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women were asked about their use of health care practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain and the costs associated with such usage. RESULTS: In the past year 76.4% consulted a complementary and alternative practitioner, 56% an allied health practitioner and 59.2% a GP/medical specialist. Overall, women consulted with, on average, 3.0 (SD = 2.0) different health care practitioners, and had, on average, 12.2 (SD = 9.7) discrete health care practitioner consultations for back pain. Average self-reported out-of-pocket expenditure on practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain care per annum was AU$873.10. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple provider usage for various but distinct purposes (i.e. pain/mobility versus anxiety/stress) points to the need for further research into patient motivations and experiences of back pain care in order to improve and enhance access to and continuity of care. Our results suggest that the cost of back pain care represents a significant burden, and may ultimately limit women's access to multiple providers. We extrapolate that for Australian working-age women, total out-of-pocket expenditure on back pain care per annum is in excess of AU$1.4 billion, thus indicating the prominence of back pain as a major economic, social and health burden.