↓ Skip to main content

Subsidized health insurance coverage of people in the informal sector and vulnerable population groups: trends in institutional design in Asia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
244 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
Subsidized health insurance coverage of people in the informal sector and vulnerable population groups: trends in institutional design in Asia
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0436-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ileana Vilcu, Lilli Probst, Bayarsaikhan Dorjsuren, Inke Mathauer

Abstract

Many low- and middle-income countries with a social health insurance system face challenges on their road towards universal health coverage (UHC), especially for people in the informal sector and vulnerable population groups or the informally employed. One way to address this is to subsidize their contributions through general government revenue transfers to the health insurance fund. This paper provides an overview of such health financing arrangements in Asian low- and middle-income countries. The purpose is to assess the institutional design features of government subsidized health insurance type arrangements for vulnerable and informally employed population groups and to explore how these features contribute to UHC progress. This regional study is based on a literature search to collect country information on the specific institutional design features of such subsidization arrangements and data related to UHC progress indicators, i.e. population coverage, financial protection and access to care. The institutional design analysis focuses on eligibility rules, targeting and enrolment procedures; financing arrangements; the pooling architecture; and benefit entitlements. Such financing arrangements currently exist in 8 countries with a total of 14 subsidization schemes. The most frequent groups covered are the poor, older persons and children. Membership in these arrangements is mostly mandatory as is full subsidization. An integrated pool for both the subsidized and the contributors exists in half of the countries, which is one of the most decisive features for equitable access and financial protection. Nonetheless, in most schemes, utilization rates of the subsidized are higher compared to the uninsured, but still lower compared to insured formal sector employees. Total population coverage rates, as well as a higher share of the subsidized in the total insured population are related with broader eligibility criteria. Overall, government subsidized health insurance type arrangements can be effective mechanism to help countries progress towards UHC, yet there is potential to improve on institutional design features as well as implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 242 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 20%
Researcher 38 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Other 11 5%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 71 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 17%
Social Sciences 35 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 18 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 5%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 81 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,943,472
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#315
of 1,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,446
of 319,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 319,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.