IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v102y2011i2p255-262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User fees for public health care services in Hungary: Expectations, experience, and acceptability from the perspectives of different stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Baji, Petra
  • Pavlova, Milena
  • Gulácsi, LászlÓ
  • Groot, Wim

Abstract

The introduction of user fees for health care services is a new phenomenon in Central-Eastern European Countries. In Hungary, user fees were first introduced in 2007, but abolished one year later after a referendum. The aim of our study is to describe the experiences and expectations of health system stakeholders in Hungary related to user fees as well as their approval of such fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Baji, Petra & Pavlova, Milena & Gulácsi, LászlÓ & Groot, Wim, 2011. "User fees for public health care services in Hungary: Expectations, experience, and acceptability from the perspectives of different stakeholders," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 255-262.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:102:y:2011:i:2:p:255-262
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851011000479
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ensor, Tim, 2004. "Informal payments for health care in transition economies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 237-246, January.
    2. Pavlova, Milena & Groot, Wim & van Merode, Godefridus, 2002. "Public attitudes towards patient payments in Bulgarian public health care sector: results of a household survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Gaal, Peter & Evetovits, Tamas & McKee, Martin, 2006. "Informal payment for health care: Evidence from Hungary," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 86-102, June.
    4. Kersnik, Janko, 2001. "Determinants of customer satisfaction with the health care system, with the possibility to choose a personal physician and with a family doctor in a transition country," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 155-164, August.
    5. Szende, Agota & Culyer, Anthony Johr, 2006. "The inequity of informal payments for health care: The case of Hungary," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 262-271, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Petra Baji & Milena Pavlova & László Gulácsi & Miklós Farkas & Wim Groot, 2014. "The link between past informal payments and willingness of the Hungarian population to pay formal fees for health care services: results from a contingent valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 853-867, November.
    2. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    3. Elka Atanasova & Milena Pavlova & Emanuela Moutafovа & Todorka Kostadinova & Wim Groot, 2015. "Patient charges for health services: the opinions of healthcare stakeholders in Bulgaria," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 232-245, July.
    4. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2013. "The formal–informal patient payment mix in European countries. Governance, economics, culture or all of these?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 284-295.
    5. L. Gulácsi & M. Péntek, 2014. "HTA in Central and Eastern European countries; the 2001: A Space Odyssey and efficiency gain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 675-680, September.
    6. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:10:p:1053-1062 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Jana Votapkova & Pavlina Zilova, 2016. "The abolition of user charges and the demand for ambulatory visits: evidence from the Czech Republic," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:102:y:2011:i:2:p:255-262. 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: (Dana Niculescu) or (). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.