IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Benefit‐incidence analysis: are government health expenditures more pro‐rich than we think?

  • Adam Wagstaff

It is generally accepted that government health expenditures should disproportionately benefit the poor. And yet in most developing countries the opposite is the case. This paper examines the implications of a central assumption of benefit incidence analysis, namely that the unit cost of a government-provided service bears no relation to the out-of-pocket payments paid by the patient. It argues that a more plausible assumption is that larger out-of-pocket payments for a given unit of utilization reflect more (or more costly) services being delivered. The paper compares -- theoretically and empirically -- the standard constant-cost assumption with two alternatives, namely that the cost of care in a specific episode of utilization is (a) proportional to or (b) linearly related to the amount of money paid out-of-pocket by the patient. An interesting special case of the linear relationship is where subsidies are focused on a basic unit of care and additional costs are met dollar-for-dollar by additional fees. The paper shows that if fees are more pro-rich than utilization, government spending will be least pro-rich under the constant-cost assumption and most pro-rich under the proportionality assumption. The linear assumption results in a concentration index for subsidies that lies between these two extremes. These results are borne out in an analysis of the incidence of government health spending in Vietnam (a country where fees are more pro-rich than utilization); indeed, under the constant-cost assumption, subsidies are pro-poor while they are pro-rich under the proportionality assumption. The paper also considers the biases created by not allowing for insurance reimbursements.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 21 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 (04)
Pages: 351-366

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:21:y:2012:i:4:p:351-366
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:21:y:2012:i:4:p:351-366. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.