↓ Skip to main content

Who pays for healthcare in Bangladesh? An analysis of progressivity in health systems financing

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Who pays for healthcare in Bangladesh? An analysis of progressivity in health systems financing
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0654-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azaher Ali Molla, Chunhuei Chi

Abstract

The relationship between payments towards healthcare and ability to pay is a measure of financial fairness. Analysis of progressivity is important from an equity perspective as well as for macroeconomic and political analysis of healthcare systems. Bangladesh health systems financing is characterized by high out-of-pocket payments (63.3%), which is increasing. Hence, we aimed to see who pays what part of this high out-of-pocket expenditure. To our knowledge, this was the first progressivity analysis of health systems financing in Bangladesh. We used data from Bangladesh Household Income and Expenditure Survey, 2010. This was a cross sectional and nationally representative sample of 12,240 households consisting of 55,580 individuals. For quantification of progressivity, we adopted the 'ability-to-pay' principle developed by O'Donnell, van Doorslaer, Wagstaff, and Lindelow (2008). We used the Kakwani index to measure the magnitude of progressivity. Health systems financing in Bangladesh is regressive. Inequality increases due to healthcare payments. The differences between the Gini coefficient and the Kakwani index for all sources of finance are negative, which indicates regressivity, and that financing is more concentrated among the poor. Income inequality increases due to high out-of-pocket payments. The increase in income inequality caused by out-of-pocket payments is 89% due to negative vertical effect and 11% due to horizontal inequity. Our findings add substantial evidence of health systems financing impact on inequitable financial burden of healthcare and income. The heavy reliance on out-of-pocket payments may affect household living standards. If the government and people of Bangladesh are concerned about equitable financing burden, our study suggests that Bangladesh needs to reform the health systems financing scheme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 23%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 57 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 13%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 64 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,825,877
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#698
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,257
of 315,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#25
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 315,598 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.