↓ Skip to main content

Why are the poor less covered in Ghana’s national health insurance? A critical analysis of policy and practice

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
332 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
Why are the poor less covered in Ghana’s national health insurance? A critical analysis of policy and practice
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0320-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes Millicent Kotoh, Sjaak Van der Geest

Abstract

The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) was introduced in Ghana to ensure equity in healthcare access. Presently, some low and middle income countries including Ghana are using social health insurance schemes to reduce inequity in access to healthcare. In Ghana, the NHIS was introduced to address the problem of inequity in healthcare access in a period that was characterised by user-fee regimes. The premium is heavily subsidised and exemption provided for the poorest, yet studies reveal that they are least enrolled in the scheme. We used a multi-level perspective as conceptual and methodological tool to examine why the NHIS is not reaching the poor as envisaged. Fifteen communities in the Central and Eastern Regions of Ghana were surveyed after implementing a 20 months intervention programme aimed at ensuring that community members have adequate knowledge of the NHIS' principles and benefits and improve enrolment and retention rates. Observation and in-depth interviews were used to gather information about the effects of the intervention in seven selected communities, health facilities and District Health Insurance Schemes in the Central Region. The results showed a distinct rise in the NHIS' enrolment among the general population but the poor were less covered. Of the 6790 individuals covered in the survey, less than half (40.3 %) of the population were currently insured in the NHIS and 22.4 % were previously insured. The poorest had the lowest enrolment rate: poorest 17.6 %, poor 31.3 %, rich 46.4 % and richest 44.4 % (p = 0.000). Previous enrolment rates were: poorest (15.4 %) and richest (23.8 %), (p = 0.000). Ironically, the poor's low enrolment was widely attributed to their poverty. The underlying structural cause, however, was policy makers' and implementers' lack of commitment to pursue NHIS' equity goal. Inequity in healthcare access persists because of the social and institutional environment in which the NHIS operates. There is a need to effectively engage stakeholders to develop interventions to ensure that the poor are included in the NHIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 331 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Student > Postgraduate 20 6%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 100 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 20%
Social Sciences 54 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 5%
Arts and Humanities 9 3%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 105 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#6,285,243
of 24,739,153 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,006
of 2,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,554
of 304,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,739,153 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,146 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 52% 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 304,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 61% of its contemporaries.