↓ Skip to main content

Effects of capitation payment on utilization and claims expenditure under National Health Insurance Scheme: a cross-sectional study of three regions in Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

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
Effects of capitation payment on utilization and claims expenditure under National Health Insurance Scheme: a cross-sectional study of three regions in Ghana
Published in
Health Economics Review, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0203-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis-Xavier Andoh-Adjei, Bronke Boudewijns, Eric Nsiah-Boateng, Felix Ankomah Asante, Koos van der Velden, Ernst Spaan

Abstract

Ghana introduced capitation payment under National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), beginning with pilot in the Ashanti region, in 2012 with a key objective of controlling utilization and related cost. This study sought to analyse utilization and claims expenditure data before and after introduction of capitation payment policy to understand whether the intended objective was achieved. The study was cross-sectional, using a non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group design. We did trend analysis, comparing utilization and claims expenditure data from three administrative regions of Ghana, one being an intervention region and two being control regions, over a 5-year period, 2010-2014. We performed multivariate analysis to determine differences in utilization and claims expenditure between the intervention and control regions, and a difference-in-differences analysis to determine the effect of capitation payment on utilization and claims expenditure in the intervention region. Findings indicate that growth in outpatient utilization and claims expenditure increased in the pre capitation period in all three regions but slowed in post capitation period in the intervention region. The linear regression analysis showed that there were significant differences in outpatient utilization (p = 0.0029) and claims expenditure (p = 0.0003) between the intervention and the control regions before implementation of the capitation payment. However, only claims expenditure showed significant difference (p = 0.0361) between the intervention and control regions after the introduction of capitation payment. A difference-in-differences analysis, however, showed that capitation payment had a significant negative effect on utilization only, in the Ashanti region (p < 0.007). Factors including availability of district hospitals and clinics were significant predictors of outpatient health care utilization. We conclude that outpatient utilization and related claims expenditure increased in both pre and post capitation periods, but the increase in post capitation period was at slower rate, suggesting that implementation of capitation payment yielded some positive results. Health policy makers in Ghana may, therefore, want to consider capitation a key provider payment method for primary outpatient care in order to control cost in health care delivery.

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 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 31 22%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 52 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 54 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,625,040
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#173
of 436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,995
of 334,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 334,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.