↓ 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)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 25%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 42 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 48 35%

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
#3,475,575
of 21,277,666 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#642
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,234
of 290,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,277,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 290,906 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them