Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Effect of regulated user fee on quality of healthcare for the poor and the non-poor

Contents:

Author Info

  • Eugenia Amporfu

    ()

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    User fee for healthcare continues to be used in many countries despite the extensive documentation on the impoverishing effect on households. The literature has also analyzed the effect of user fee on the quality of care for both rich and poor. The purpose of this study is to find the factors affecting the physician’s behavior, under a user fee payment mechanism with an exemption program for the poor, when choosing treatment for poor and non-poor patients. The factors examined were treatment effort input, the fine, cost of investigation, costliness of government, severity of illness for the non-poor and for the poor, and the proportion of non-poor patients. The results showed that regulated user fee cannot be effectively implemented without government investigation or monitoring of the health provider’s treatment choice. The possibility of investigation provides incentive for the provider to choose the proper treatment quality when the poor are likely to be high risk than the non-poor. An important result is that regulated user fee can deteriorate the quality of care received by the rich, through excessive treatment, especially in developing economies where there is a small proportion of the rich. Improvement in innovative technologies that reduce the cost of investigation, government revenue collection, and treatment effort input is likely to improve the quality of care provided to patients regardless of income status. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s12232-013-0186-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer in its journal International Review of Economics.

    Volume (Year): 60 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 4 (December)
    Pages: 357-373

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:spr:inrvec:v:60:y:2013:i:4:p:357-373

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/12232

    Order Information:
    Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

    Related research

    Keywords: Regulated user fee; Cheating; Cost of investigation; Quality of care; 1110; 1180;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Pierre Thomas Léger, 2000. "Quality control mechanisms under capitation payment for medical services," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 564-586, May.
    2. Ettner, Susan L., 1996. "New evidence on the relationship between income and health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 67-85, February.
    3. Kurt R. Brekke & Robert Nuscheler & Odd Rune Straume, 2005. "Gatekeeping in Health Care," CESifo Working Paper Series 1552, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. Ridde, Valéry & Diarra, Aïssa & Moha, Mahaman, 2011. "User fees abolition policy in Niger: Comparing the under five years exemption implementation in two districts," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 219-225, March.
    5. Hunt, Jennifer, 2010. "Bribery in health care in Uganda," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 699-707, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:inrvec:v:60:y:2013:i:4:p:357-373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.