John E. Ataguba

Inequities in access to health care in South Africa

Achieving equitable universal health coverage requires the provision of accessible, necessary services for the entire population without imposing an unaffordable burden on individuals or households. In South Africa, little is known about access barriers to health care for the general population. We explore affordability, availability, and acceptability of services through a nationally representative household survey (n=4668), covering utilization, health status, reasons for delaying care, perceptions and experiences of services, and health-care expenditure. Socio-economic status, race, insurance status, and urban-rural location were associated with access to care, with black Africans, poor, uninsured and rural respondents, experiencing greatest barriers. Understanding access barriers from the user perspective is important for expanding health-care coverage, both in South Africa and in other low- and middle-income countries.

Equity in financing and use of health care in Ghana, South Africa, and Tanzania: implications for paths to universal coverage

BACKGROUND Universal coverage of health care is now receiving substantial worldwide and national attention, but debate continues on the best mix of financing mechanisms, especially to protect people outside the formal employment sector. Crucial issues are the equity implications of different financing mechanisms, and patterns of service use. We report a whole-system analysis--integrating both public and private sectors--of the equity of health-system financing and service use in Ghana, South Africa, and Tanzania. METHODS We used primary and secondary data to calculate the progressivity of each health-care financing mechanism, catastrophic spending on health care, and the distribution of health-care benefits. We collected qualitative data to inform interpretation. FINDINGS Overall health-care financing was progressive in all three countries, as were direct taxes. Indirect taxes were regressive in South Africa but progressive in Ghana and Tanzania. Out-of-pocket payments were regressive in all three countries. Health-insurance contributions by those outside the formal sector were regressive in both Ghana and Tanzania. The overall distribution of service benefits in all three countries favoured richer people, although the burden of illness was greater for lower-income groups. Access to needed, appropriate services was the biggest challenge to universal coverage in all three countries. INTERPRETATION Analyses of the equity of financing and service use provide guidance on which financing mechanisms to expand, and especially raise questions over the appropriate financing mechanism for the health care of people outside the formal sector. Physical and financial barriers to service access must be addressed if universal coverage is to become a reality. FUNDING European Union and International Development Research Centre.

Socioeconomic-related health inequality in South Africa: evidence from General Household Surveys

BackgroundInequalities in health have received considerable attention from health scientists and economists. In South Africa, inequalities exist in socio-economic status (SES) and in access to basic social services and are exacerbated by inequalities in health. While health systems, together with the wider social determinants of health, are relevant in seeking to improve health status and health inequalities, those that need good quality health care too seldom get it. Studies on the burden of ill-health in South Africa have shown consistently that, relative to the wealthy, the poor suffer more from more disease and violence. However, these studies are based on selected disease conditions and only consider a single point in time. Trend analyses have yet to be produced. This paper specifically investigates socio-economic related health inequality in South Africa and seeks to understand how the burden of self-reported illness and disability is distributed and whether this has changed since the early 2000s.MethodsSeveral rounds (2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008) of the South African General Household Surveys (GHS) data were used, with standardized and normalized self-reported illness and disability concentration indices to assess the distribution of illness and disability across socio-economic groups. Composite indices of socio-economic status were created using a set of common assets and household characteristics.ResultsThis study demonstrates the existence of socio-economic gradients in self-reported ill-health in South Africa. The burden of the major categories of ill-health and disability is greater among lower than higher socio-economic groups. Even non-communicable diseases, which are frequently seen as diseases of affluence, are increasingly being reported by lower socio-economic groups. For instance, the concentration index of flu (and diabetes) declined from about 0.17 (0.10) in 2002 to 0.05 (0.01) in 2008. These results have also been confirmed internationally.ConclusionThe current burden and distribution of ill-health indicates how critical it is for the South African health system to strive for access to and use of health services that is in line with need for such care. Concerted government efforts, within both the health sector and other social and economic sectors are therefore needed to address the significant health inequalities in South Africa.

Does the distribution of health care benefits in Kenya meet the principles of universal coverage

BackgroundThe 58th World Health Assembly called for all health systems to move towards universal coverage where everyone has access to key promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative health interventions at an affordable cost. Universal coverage involves ensuring that health care benefits are distributed on the basis of need for care and not on ability to pay. The distribution of health care benefits is therefore an important policy question, which health systems should address. The aim of this study is to assess the distribution of health care benefits in the Kenyan health system, compare changes over two time periods and demonstrate the extent to which the distribution meets the principles of universal coverage.MethodsTwo nationally representative cross-sectional households surveys conducted in 2003 and 2007 were the main sources of data. A comprehensive analysis of the entire health system is conducted including the public sector, private-not-for-profit and private-for-profit sectors. Standard benefit incidence analysis techniques were applied and adopted to allow application to private sector services.ResultsThe three sectors recorded similar levels of pro-rich distribution in 2003, but in 2007, the private-not-for-profit sector was pro-poor, public sector benefits showed an equal distribution, while the private-for-profit sector remained pro-rich. Larger pro-rich disparities were recorded for inpatient compared to outpatient benefits at the hospital level, but primary health care services were pro-poor. Benefits were distributed on the basis of ability to pay and not on need for care.ConclusionsThe principles of universal coverage require that all should benefit from health care according to need. The Kenyan health sector is clearly inequitable and benefits are not distributed on the basis of need. Deliberate efforts should be directed to restructuring the Kenyan health system to address access barriers and ensure that all Kenyans benefit from health care when they need it.

Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Community Healthcare Insurance in Rural Nigeria

Health care financing in Nigeria is dominated by private out-of-pocket payment that is not affordable to the poor. This has greatly reduced access to quality health care for the predominantly rural poor. Insurance schemes as options for increasing access to health care services have not received considerable attention in Nigeria. In this regard, a community health prepayment scheme is proposed, and the Contingent Valuation Method is used to investigate the willingness of rural households to pay for this scheme. Contributing through agricultural commodities produced statistically higher estimates than through direct cash. Also, by incorporating uncertainty in responses using the Random Valuation Model, higher contribution amounts were obtained. This provides an option for its use in healthcare contingent valuation studies where respondents are uncertain about their true responses. The groups that are willing to pay lesser amounts into the scheme as compared with their counterparts are women, the less educated, and the less wealthy households.

A systematic review of factors that affect uptake of community-based health insurance in low-income and middle-income countries

BackgroundLow-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have difficulties achieving universal financial protection, which is primordial for universal health coverage. A promising avenue to provide universal financial protection for the informal sector and the rural populace is community-based health insurance (CBHI). We systematically assessed and synthesised factors associated with CBHI enrolment in LMICs.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, PsychInfo, Africa-Wide Information, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, WHOLIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and reference lists for eligible studies available by 31 October 2013; regardless of publication status. We included both quantitative and qualitative studies in the review.ResultsBoth quantitative and qualitative studies demonstrated low levels of income and lack of financial resources as major factors affecting enrolment. Also, poor healthcare quality (including stock-outs of drugs and medical supplies, poor healthcare worker attitudes, and long waiting times) was found to be associated with low CBHI coverage. Trust in both the CBHI scheme and healthcare providers were also found to affect enrolment. Educational attainment (less educated are willing to pay less than highly educated), sex (men are willing to pay more than women), age (younger are willing to pay more than older individuals), and household size (larger households are willing to pay more than households with fewer members) also influenced CBHI enrolment.ConclusionIn LMICs, while CBHI schemes may be helpful in the short term to address the issue of improving the rural population and informal workers’ access to health services, they still face challenges. Lack of funds, poor quality of care, and lack of trust are major reasons for low CBHI coverage in LMICs. If CBHI schemes are to serve as a means to providing access to health services, at least in the short term, then attention should be paid to the issues that militate against their success.

Who benefits from health services in South Africa

South Africa is considering major health service restructuring to move towards a universal system. This calls for understanding the challenges in the existing health system. The paper, therefore, comprehensively evaluates an aspect of current health system performance - the benefit incidence of health services. It seeks to understand how the benefits from using health services in South Africa are currently distributed across socio-economic groups. Using a nationally representative household survey, results show that lower socio-economic groups benefit less than their richer counterparts from both public and private sector health services, and that the distribution of service benefits is not in line with their need for care.

Assessing catastrophic and impoverishing effects of health care payments in Uganda.

BackgroundDirect out-of-pocket payments for health care are recognised as limiting access to health care services and also endangering the welfare of households. In Uganda, such payments comprise a large portion of total health financing. This study assesses the catastrophic and impoverishing impact of paying for health care out-of-pocket in Uganda.MethodsUsing data from the Uganda National Household Surveys 2009/10, the catastrophic impact of out-of-pocket health care payments is defined using thresholds that vary with household income. The impoverishing effect of out-of-pocket health care payments is assessed using the Ugandan national poverty line and the World Bank poverty line (

Multidimensional poverty assessment: applying the capability approach

1.25/day).ResultsA high level and intensity of both financial catastrophe and impoverishment due to out-of-pocket payments are recorded. Using an initial threshold of 10% of household income, about 23% of Ugandan households face financial ruin. Based on both the

The feasibility of measuring and monitoring social determinants of health and the relevance for policy and programme – a qualitative assessment of four countries

1.25/day and the Ugandan poverty lines, about 4% of the population are further impoverished by such payments. This represents a relative increase in poverty head count of 17.1% and 18.1% respectively.ConclusionThe absence of financial protection in Uganda’s health system calls for concerted action. Currently, out-of-pocket payments account for a large share of total health financing and there is no pooled prepayment system available. There is therefore a need to move towards mandatory prepayment. In this way, people could access the needed health services without any associated financial consequence.