13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Who benefits from healthcare spending in Cambodia? Evidence for a universal health coverage policy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cambodia’s healthcare system has seen significant improvements in the last two decades. Despite this, access to quality care remains problematic, particularly for poor rural Cambodians. The government has committed to universal health coverage (UHC) and is reforming the health financing system to align with this goal. The extent to which the reforms have impacted the poor is not always clear. Using a system-wide approach, this study assesses how benefits from healthcare spending are distributed across socioeconomic groups in Cambodia. Benefit incidence analysis was employed to assess the distribution of benefits from health spending. Primary data on the use of health services and the costs associated with it were collected through a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 5000 households. Secondary data from the 2012–14 Cambodia National Health Accounts and other official documents were used to estimate the unit costs of services. The results indicate that benefits from health spending at the primary care level in the public sector are distributed in favour of the poor, with about 32% of health centre benefits going to the poorest population quintile. Public hospital outpatient benefits are quite evenly distributed across all wealth quintiles, although the concentration index of −0.058 suggests a moderately pro-poor distribution. Benefits for public hospital inpatient care are substantially pro-poor. The private sector was significantly skewed towards the richest quintile. Relative to health need, the distribution of total benefits in the public sector is pro-poor while the private sector is relatively pro-rich. Looking across the entire health system, health financing in Cambodia appears to benefit the poor more than the rich but a significant proportion of spending remains in the private sector which is largely pro-rich. There is the need for some government regulation of the private sector if Cambodia is to achieve its UHC goals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies.

          We examine the growing number of studies of survey respondents' global self-ratings of health as predictors of mortality in longitudinal studies of representative community samples. Twenty-seven studies in U.S. and international journals show impressively consistent findings. Global self-rated health is an independent predictor of mortality in nearly all of the studies, despite the inclusion of numerous specific health status indicators and other relevant covariates known to predict mortality. We summarize and review these studies, consider various interpretations which could account for the association, and suggest several approaches to the next stage of research in this field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?

            American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown. We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001). The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Equity in Health Care Financing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Studies Using Benefit and Financing Incidence Analyses

              Introduction Health financing reforms in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) over the past decades have focused on achieving equity in financing of health care delivery through universal health coverage. Benefit and financing incidence analyses are two analytical methods for comprehensively evaluating how well health systems perform on these objectives. This systematic review assesses progress towards equity in health care financing in LMICs through the use of BIA and FIA. Methods and Findings Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing. Conclusion Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Policy Plan
                Health Policy Plan
                heapol
                Health Policy and Planning
                Oxford University Press
                0268-1080
                1460-2237
                October 2019
                23 October 2019
                23 October 2019
                : 34
                : Suppl 1 , Transforming health systems financing in lower-Mekong: Making sure nobody is left behind
                : i4-i13
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Public Health & Community Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney , Kensington NSW, Australia
                [2 ] National Institute of Public Health , Lot no 80, Street 289, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
                [3 ] Khon Kaen University , Khon Kaen, Thailand
                [4 ] Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , 15-17 Tavistock Place, Kings Cross, London, UK
                [5 ]Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University , Bangkok, Thailand
                [6 ] School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University , Japan
                [7 ] University of Technology Sydney (UTS) , 15 Broadway, Ultimo NSW, Australia
                [8 ]The George Institute for Global Health , Newtown, Australia
                [9 ] University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) , Kensington NSW, Australia
                [10 ] Kirby Institute for Infections and Immunity, University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) , Level 6, Wallace Wurth Building, High Street, Kensington NSW, Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding author. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Room 238, Level 2 Samuels Building, Sydney, NSW, Australia. E-mail: a.asante@ 123456unsw.edu.au
                Article
                czz011
                10.1093/heapol/czz011
                6807515
                31644800
                159850dd-8137-4751-8bb6-091ec0d379d8
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 8 February 2019
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
                Award ID: DP150101321
                Funded by: Social Health Protection Network P4H
                Funded by: Australian Research Council 10.13039/501100000923
                Categories
                Supplement Articles

                Social policy & Welfare
                equity,health financing,universal health coverage,benefit incidence analysis,cambodia

                Comments

                Comment on this article