IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tul/ceqwps/66.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Government Health Expenditure on the Income Distribution: A Comparison of Valuation Methods in Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy Barofsky

    (Brookings Institution)

  • Stephen D. Younger

    (Department of Economics, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY)

Abstract

Government spending on services affects the level and distribution of welfare, but measuring its value is a challenge. To assess how publicly funded in-kind health care affects the income distribution, we must estimate its monetary value to beneficiaries. We describe and compare three approaches to measuring the distributional consequences of government health spending: average cost of provision, willingness-to-pay, and health outcomes. In addition, we estimate the value of financial risk protection from insurance, which is a benefit of health spending that can be added to each of the aforementioned approaches. Average cost is the standard method used in benefit-incidence studies (Lustig, 2018). This method values utilization of each unit of care at the government’s average cost of provision, calculated with national accounts data and administrative records. Willingness to pay uses revealed preference to estimate compensating variations for health care subsidies. The health outcomes method estimates the effect of government health spending on mortality and values those mortality reductions in monetary terms. We provide example applications for each of these methods using a national cross-section from Ghana for 2012/13. We estimate a willingness to pay model for outpatient services and find that, on average, users value those services at less than what the government pays for them. The estimated marginal effect of health spending for outpatient care on inequality are modest and somewhat smaller than those for the average cost approach. In contrast, the health outcomes method finds that the marginal effects of health spending for three causes of death and five health interventions are very large. Health interventions to reduce malaria mortality such as indoor residual spraying and distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets are strongly progressive and the averted mortality from providing anti-malarial medication dwarfs the distributional effects of any other public expenditure or tax in Ghana. Adopting the health outcomes approach dramatically changes our assessment of how public spending in Ghana affects the welfare distribution. The benefit of financial risk protection from Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme equals 0.25% to 0.5% of income for the three poorest quartiles and between 0.5% and 1% of income for the wealthiest, yet insurance is still distributed somewhat more equally than income itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy Barofsky & Stephen D. Younger, 2019. "The Effect of Government Health Expenditure on the Income Distribution: A Comparison of Valuation Methods in Ghana," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 66, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:tul:ceqwps:66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.tulane.edu/RePEc/ceq/ceq66.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    : Health; Economic Inequality; Poverty; Mortality; Ghana; Full Income;

    JEL classification:

    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • I15 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Economic Development
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tul:ceqwps:66. 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: (Nora Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/detulus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.