IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/15-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Free primary care in Zambia: an impact evaluation using a pooled synthetic control method

Author

Listed:
  • Lépine, A.
  • Lagarde, M.
  • Le Nestour, A.

Abstract

We estimate the impacts of user fee removal in Zambia using a pooled synthetic control method. We find no evidence that user fee removal changed health seeking behaviours, even among the poorest. We show that these results are not attributable to the imperfect implementation of the policy. Nonetheless, our results confirm that the policy virtually eliminated medical expenditures, thereby providing financial protection to health services users. Since the poorest individuals were found to be less likely to use care and had lower expenses, ceteris paribus, the policy effect was similar to a transfer of US$2.22 per medical visit for the total sample but of only US$0.65 for the poorest people.

Suggested Citation

  • Lépine, A. & Lagarde, M. & Le Nestour, A., 2015. "Free primary care in Zambia: an impact evaluation using a pooled synthetic control method," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 15/20, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:15/20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/hedg/workingpapers/1520.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jessica Cohen & Pascaline Dupas, 2008. "Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Malaria Prevention Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14406, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2008. "Nonparametric Tests for Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 389-405, August.
    3. Laurent Gobillon & Thierry Magnac, 2016. "Regional Policy Evaluation: Interactive Fixed Effects and Synthetic Controls," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 535-551, July.
    4. repec:spr:portec:v:1:y:2002:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-002-0010-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    7. Copp[combining acute accent]o, P. & Pisani, L. & Keita, A., 1992. "Perceived morbidity and health behaviour in a Dogon community," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1227-1235, June.
    8. Gertler, Paul & Locay, Luis & Sanderson, Warren, 1987. "Are user fees regressive? : The welfare implications of health care financing proposals in Peru," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 67-88.
    9. Lavy, V. & Quigley, J.M., 1993. "Willingness to Pay for the Quality and Intensity of Midical Care; Low- Income Households in Ghana," Papers 94, World Bank - Living Standards Measurement.
    10. Edward Miguel & Michael Kremer, 2004. "Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 159-217, January.
    11. Jessica Cohen & Pascaline Dupas, 2010. "Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Randomized Malaria Prevention Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 125(1), pages 1-45.
    12. Aurélia Lépine & Alexis Le Nestour, 2013. "The Determinants of Health Care Utilisation in Rural Senegal," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), vol. 22(1), pages 163-186, January.
    13. Xu, Ke & Evans, David B. & Kadama, Patrick & Nabyonga, Juliet & Ogwal, Peter Ogwang & Nabukhonzo, Pamela & Aguilar, Ana Mylena, 2006. "Understanding the impact of eliminating user fees: Utilization and catastrophic health expenditures in Uganda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 866-876, February.
    14. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    15. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    16. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    17. Rebecca L. Thornton & Laurel E. Hatt & Erica M. Field & Mursaleena Islam & Freddy Solís Diaz & Martha Azucena González, 2010. "Social security health insurance for the informal sector in Nicaragua: a randomized evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(S1), pages 181-206, September.
    18. Lucy Gilson & Steven Russell & Kent Buse, 1995. "The political economy of user fees with targeting: Developing equitable health financing policy," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(3), pages 369-401, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    user fees; health care use; health expenditure; provider choice; synthetic control; propensity score matching; difference-in-differences; Zambia;

    JEL classification:

    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics
    • C20 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:yor:hectdg:15/20. 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: (Jane Rawlings) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Jane Rawlings to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.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.

    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.