| Literature DB >> 31374083 |
Yewande Kofoworola Ogundeji1, Babatunde Akomolafe1, Kelechi Ohiri1, Nuhu Natie Butawa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many low and middle-income countries are increasingly cognisant of the need to offer financial protection to its citizens through pre-payment schemes in order to curb high out of pocket expenditure and catastrophic spending on healthcare. However, there is limited rigorous contextual evidence to make decisions regarding optimal design of such schemes. This study assesses the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the recently introduced state contributory health insurance scheme (SHIS) in Nigeria.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31374083 PMCID: PMC6677309 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sample allocation of clusters and households by residence for Kaduna state.
| Sample Selection | Kaduna State | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Rural | Total | |
| EA/Clusters | 21 | 81 | 102 |
| Households | 210 | 810 | 1020 |
Description of the dependent and independent variable hypothesised to explain willingness to pay.
| Variables | Description | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| If respondents are willing to pay for health insurance or not | 0 = No | |
| The monthly earning of the head of the household | 0 = Low income | |
| Whether male or female | 0 = Female | |
| The highest level of education attained | 0 = Low education level | |
| Total number of residents in the household | 0 = Low household size | |
| Whether respondent is residence in rural or urban location | 0 = Rural |
Key socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
| Rural | Urban | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income (naira) | Frequency | % | Frequency | % | Frequency | % |
| 342 | 52.7 | 90 | 26.8 | 432 | 43.9 | |
| 173 | 26.7 | 92 | 27.4 | 265 | 26.9 | |
| 84 | 12.9 | 74 | 22.0 | 158 | 16.0 | |
| 22 | 3.4 | 27 | 8.0 | 49 | 5.0 | |
| 9 | 1.4 | 17 | 5.1 | 26 | 2.6 | |
| 6 | 0.9 | 16 | 4.8 | 22 | 2.2 | |
| 13 | 2.0 | 20 | 6.0 | 33 | 3.4 | |
| 57 | 8.8 | 32 | 9.5 | 89 | 9.0 | |
| 184 | 28.4 | 110 | 32.7 | 294 | 29.8 | |
| 195 | 30.0 | 92 | 27.4 | 287 | 29.1 | |
| 126 | 19.4 | 65 | 19.3 | 191 | 19.4 | |
| 87 | 13.4 | 37 | 11.0 | 124 | 12.6 | |
| 41 | 6.3 | 28 | 8.3 | 69 | 7.0 | |
| 608 | 93.7 | 308 | 91.7 | 916 | 93.0 | |
| 91 | 14.0 | 60 | 17.9 | 151 | 15.3 | |
| 10 | 1.5 | 22 | 6.5 | 32 | 3.2 | |
| 32 | 4.9 | 17 | 5.1 | 49 | 5.0 | |
| 399 | 61.5 | 194 | 57.7 | 593 | 60.2 | |
| 10 | 1.5 | 8 | 2.4 | 18 | 1.8 | |
| 23 | 3.5 | 12 | 3.6 | 35 | 3.6 | |
| 84 | 12.9 | 23 | 6.8 | 107 | 10.9 | |
| 98 | 15.1 | 27 | 8.0 | 125 | 12.7 | |
| 15 | 2.3 | 19 | 5.7 | 34 | 3.5 | |
| 236 | 36.4 | 117 | 34.8 | 353 | 35.8 | |
| 78 | 12.0 | 101 | 30.1 | 179 | 18.2 | |
| 157 | 24.2 | 48 | 14.3 | 205 | 20.8 | |
| 63 | 9.7 | 24 | 7.1 | 87 | 8.8 | |
| 2 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.2 |
Descriptive statistics for amount respondents were willing to pay.
| Male | Female | Married | Single | Urban | Rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 519 | 426 | 511 | 783 | 611 | 464 | |
| 25 | 54 | 26 | 130 | 32 | 32 | |
| 450 | 350 | 450 | 500 | 500 | 300 | |
| 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 200 | |
| 692 | 391 | 692 | 700 | 527 | 736 | |
| 49 | 108 | 51 | 266 | 63 | 63 |
Result of logistics multivariate regression analysis.
| Independent Variables | Multivariate Regression | Univariate Regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | P-value(95% CI | Odds Ratio | P-value(95% CI | |
| 2.295 | 0.001 | 1.633 | 0.029 | |
| 1.135 | 0.802 | 1.144 | 0.786 | |
| 0.419 | 0.012 | 0.484 | 0.005 | |
| 0.723 | 0.367 | 0.533 | 0.024 | |
| 0.668 | 0.089 | 0.679 | 0.090 | |
| 1.118 | 0.651 | 1.193 | 0.436 | |
Result of linear multivariate regression analysis.
| Independent Variables | Multivariate regression | Univariate regression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B coefficient | P-value(95% CI | B coefficient | P-value(95% CI | |
| 0.134 | 0.032 | 0.182 | 0.000 | |
| 0.042 | 0.434 | 0.142 | 0.001 | |
| 0.114 | 0.031 | 0.174 | 0.000 | |
| -0.33 | 0.476 | 0.079 | 0.937 | |
| 0.003 | 0.943 | 0.062 | 0.168 | |
| -0.052 | 0.238 | -0.051 | 0.254 | |
Expenditure to income approach for ability to pay.
| >5% of household income | <5% of household income | |
|---|---|---|
| 282 | 525 | |
| 35% | 65% |