| Literature DB >> 26828935 |
Sayem Ahmed1,2, Mohammad Enamul Hoque3, Abdur Razzaque Sarker1, Marufa Sultana1, Ziaul Islam1, Rukhsana Gazi1, Jahangir A M Khan1,2,4,5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reliance on out-of-pocket payment for healthcare may lead poor households to undertake catastrophic health expenditure, and risk-pooling mechanisms have been recommended to mitigate such burdens for households in Bangladesh. About 88% of the population of Bangladesh depends on work in the informal sector. We aimed to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for CBHI and identify its determinants among three categories of urban informal workers rickshaw-pullers, shopkeepers and restaurant workers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26828935 PMCID: PMC4734618 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The service package of the health insurance product.
| Health services | Co-payment |
|---|---|
| | Free of cost |
| | 60 BDT |
| | 50 BDT |
| Ultra-sonography | 75–150 BDT |
| ECG | 50 BDT |
| Most of the low cost tests (Like, Blood grouping, Hb%, Stool test, Random Blood Sugar) | Free of cost |
| Some tests (like, Blood TC/DC/ESR, Urine RE,) | 10–200 BDT |
| Blood transfusion of neonatal | 500 BDT |
| Other treatment of neonatal | Free of cost |
| Normal delivery | 100–500 BDT |
| Caesarean and other surgery | 2000–3000 BDT |
| Orthopedic surgery | 3000–4000 BDT |
| Appendicitis | 100 BDT |
| Gall bladder operation | 3000 BDT |
| 50% discount on maximum retail price set by government |
Respondent and household characteristics.
| Variables | Rickshaw-puller | Shop-keeper | Restaurant worker | Difference across occupational group (p-value) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.9 | 27.3 | 31.1 | 0.028 | 30.4 |
| Gender (Male %) | 99.5 | 98.5 | 87.6 | 0.000 | 95.3 |
| Marital status (Married %) | 82.8 | 37.8 | 64.6 | 0.012 | 61.4 |
| Household size | 4.6 | 5.5 | 4.8 | 0.072 | 5.0 |
| Educational level | |||||
| Less than one year (%) | 72 | 11 | 44 | 0.092 | 42 |
| Up to primary (%) | 23 | 33 | 36 | 0.073 | 30 |
| More than primary (%) | 5 | 56 | 20 | 0.051 | 28 |
| Monthly income of the worker (BDT) | 7,696.5 | 5,870.4 | 5,617.0 | 0.011 | 6,399.2 |
| Household income per equivalent adult (BDT) | 3,256.6 | 5,015.9 | 3,037.9 | 0.004 | 3,839.1 |
| Household expenditure per equivalent adult (BDT) | 2,948.7 | 3,473.6 | 2,328.3 | 0.998 | 2,965.2 |
| Location | |||||
| Metropolitan city (%) | 33.3 | 32.1 | 33.7 | 33.0 | |
| District (%) | 34.4 | 36.2 | 34.2 | 35.0 | |
| Sub-district (%) | 32.2 | 31.6 | 32.0 | 31.9 | |
| 186 | 193 | 178 | 557 |
Distribution of participant WTP health insurance premiums weekly versus monthly by location and occupational group.
| Weekly payment | Monthly payment | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub-district | 63.6% | 36.4% |
| District | 46.8% | 53.3% |
| Metropolitan city | 78.7% | 21.3% |
| Rickshaw-puller | 78.9% | 21.1% |
| Shop-keeper | 48.4% | 51.6% |
| Restaurant workers | 60.7% | 39.4% |
| 63.4% | 36.7% |
WTP (mean and CI) per week across occupational groups and locations.
| Average WTP(BDT)(95% CI) | Average WTP excluding outliers (BDT)(95% CI) | Median WTP(BDT) | Significance test (p-value) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-district | 27.0(22.5–31.6) | 21.2 (18.9–23.4) | 20.0 | 0.00 |
| District | 16.6(14.5–18.6) | 16.6 (14.5–18.6) | 12.5 | |
| Metropolitan city | 24.5(21.7–27.4) | 22.5 (20.5–24.5) | 20.0 | |
| Rickshaw-puller | 28.2(24.7–31.7) | 25.0 (22.9–27.0) | 20.0 | 0.00 |
| Shop-keeper | 19.2(16.1–22.4) | 16.5 (14.4–18.6) | 12.5 | |
| Restaurant workers | 20.4(17.0–23.8) | 18.2 (16.2–20.2) | 15.0 | |
Fig 1Average WTP and WTP as percentage of income (weekly) across income quintiles of the workers.
Association of respondent characteristics with WTP (natural logged) for health insurance coverage from a multivariate regression analysis.
| Variables | Description | Coefficient (Std. Err.) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | In years | -0.002(0.005) |
| Gender | Female (Ref = male) | -0.15(0.193) |
| Marital status | Unmarried (ref = married) | 0.025(0.11) |
| Others (ref = married) | 0.29(0.749) | |
| Household size | Number of household members | 0.025(0.033) |
| Educational level | Up to primary level (ref = less than one year) | -0.269 |
| More than primary level (ref = less than one year) | -0.056(0.125) | |
| Monthly income | Logged income per month | 0.196 |
| Illness in last 6 months | Illness of respondent or any household member | -0.01(0.125) |
| Location | Sub-district (ref = Metropolitan city) | -0.014 |
| District (ref = Metropolitan city) | -0.487 | |
| Occupation | Shop worker (ref = Rickshaw-puller) | -0.685 |
| Restaurant workers (ref = Rickshaw-puller) | -0.386 | |
| Constant | 1.83(0.672) | |
| N | 326 | |
| Adjusted R-square | 0.219 | |
| F-value(14,146) (Prob>F) | 8.01 (0.000) | |
| Mean VIF (max) | 1.51 (2.24) | |
| BP/Cook-Weisberg test (p>ch2) | 0.45 (0.503) | |
| Ramsey RESET, F (p>F) | 3.46 (0.017) | |
Note
*** denotes significant at 1% risk level.
** denotes significant at 5% risk level.
Association of respondent characteristics with proportion of WTP and income for health insurance coverage from a GLM regression analysis
| Variables | Description | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | In years | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) |
| Gender | Female (Ref = male) | 0.83 (0.5–1.37) |
| Marital status | Unmarried (ref = married) | 1.08 (0.83–1.39) |
| Others (ref = married) | 1.25 (0.65–2.42) | |
| Household size | Number of household members | 0.99 (0.96–1.04) |
| Educational level | Up to primary level (ref = less than one year) | 0.66 |
| More than primary level (ref = less than one year) | 0.98 (0.71–1.37) | |
| Monthly income | Logged income per month | 0.46 |
| Illness in last 6 months | Illness of respondent or any household member | 1.07 (0.71–1.61) |
| Location | Sub-district (ref = Metropolitan city) | 1.25 (0.94–1.65) |
| District (ref = Metropolitan city) | 0.59 | |
| Occupation | Shop worker (ref = Rickshaw-puller) | 0.64 |
| Restaurant workers (ref = Rickshaw-puller) | 0.75 (0.49–1.17) | |
| Constant | 25.25 | |
Note
*** denotes significant at 1% risk level.
** denotes significant at 5% risk level.