↓ Skip to main content

Equity of the premium of the Ghanaian national health insurance scheme and the implications for achieving universal coverage

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Equity of the premium of the Ghanaian national health insurance scheme and the implications for achieving universal coverage
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-12-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugenia Amporfu

Abstract

The Ghanaian National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) was introduced to provide access to adequate health care regardless of ability to pay. By law the NHIS is mandatory but because the informal sector has to make premium payment before they are enrolled, the authorities are unable to enforce mandatory nature of the scheme. The ultimate goal of the Scheme then is to provide all residents with access to adequate health care at affordable cost. In other words, the Scheme intends to achieve universal coverage. An important factor for the achievement of universal coverage is that revenue collection be equitable. The purpose of this study is to examine the vertical and horizontal equity of the premium collection of the Scheme. The Kakwani index method as well as graphical analysis was used to study the vertical equity. Horizontal inequity was measured through the effect of the premium on redistribution of ability to pay of members. The extent to which the premium could cause catastrophic expenditure was also examined. The results showed that revenue collection was both vertically and horizontally inequitable. The horizontal inequity had a greater effect on redistribution of ability to pay than vertical inequity. The computation of catastrophic expenditure showed that a small minority of the poor were likely to incur catastrophic expenditure from paying the premium a situation that could impede the achievement of universal coverage. The study provides recommendations to improve the inequitable system of premium payment to help achieve universal coverage.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 132 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 31%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Social Sciences 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#2,168
of 2,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,888
of 289,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#20
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.