| Literature DB >> 32164725 |
Eric Obikeze1,2, Obinna Onwujekwe3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Nigeria, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are the purchasers of health insurance with a social National Health Insurance Scheme for civil servants. However the roles of HMOs in implementation of social health insurance are not clear. This study determined the roles of HMOs in implementation of the national social health insurance scheme in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Health maintenance organizations; Social health insurance; Southeast Nigeria
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164725 PMCID: PMC7068878 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-020-1146-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Partially mixed sequential dominant status design (Adapted from Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011)
Summary of Data Collection Methods per Specific Objective
| Objective | Data required | Design | Population | Sample size | Sampling Approach | Tool | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To determine levels of satisfaction on HMOs by different socio-economic groups in the State | Available information and communication across socio-economic groups that are covered, satisfaction with roles of HMOs | Quantitative (using SPSS and Stata) | Survey of Federal Staff who are registered with NHIS using the enrollee register from the NHIS | Survey with enrollees of Federal Staff for NHIS (613 respondents) | Purposive (multi- staged sampling techniques) | Questionnaire, pen, Stata, SPSS statistical packages | SPSS, Stata |
| To determine roles and responsibilities of HMOs in Enugu State | Roles responsibilities and institutional requirements | Qualitative (IDIs using N-vivo) | Stakeholders in social and private Health Insurance including HMOs, providers, CBHI trustees and NHIS managers. | 28 in-depth interviews involving stakeholders | Purposive | IDI guide, tape recorder, pen, | N-vivo |
| To determine the extent of HMOs’ functions in implementation of social health insurance schemes | Levels of involvement/participation in the scheme by HMOs and other stakeholders | Qualitative (IDIs using N-vivo) | Public and private health care providers in the study area; mutual health organizations and key opinion leaders | Same as above | Purposive | IDI guide, tape recorder, pen | N-vivo |
Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents
| Variables | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Attended School | 613 | 100 |
| Female respondent | 231 | 38 |
| Main occupation | ||
| Cleaner | 8 | 1.30 |
| Clerical | 70 | 11.40 |
| Middle manager | 53 | 8.60 |
| Professional | 182 | 29.70 |
| Senior manager | 30 | 4.90 |
| Other | 270 | 44.00 |
| Other source of income | ||
| Farming | 27 | 48.20 |
| Petty trading | 17 | 30.40 |
| Business | 9 | 16.10 |
| Part-time job | 1 | 1.80 |
| Others | 2 | 3.60 |
| SES distribution | ||
| Q1 (poorest) | 156 | 25.45 |
| Q2 (very poor) | 152 | 24.80 |
| Q3 (poor) | 156 | 25.45 |
| Q4 (least poor) | 149 | 24.31 |
| No of people in Household Mean (SD) | 4.39 (1.96) | |
| Age: Mean (SD) | 39.53 (8.29) | |
| Take home salary: Mean (SD) | 78,255.90 (58,682.57) | |
| Extra income of respondent Mean (SD) | 5052.32 (14,629.08) | |
| Number of household members covered: Mean (SD) | 2.78 (1.77) | |
Note: many of the respondents in the selected clusters (in Table 2) did not fall into the category of respondents in the study instrument. For instance, in the military, police and Federal Ministries, some cadres such as officer cadet, sergeant at arm, mortuary attendance etc, were not included and so were referred to as others
Satisfaction with roles and ranking of HMOs by respondents
| Respondent | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Roles of HMOs | ||
| Very important | 192 | 31.3 |
| Important | 157 | 25.6 |
| Not necessary | 141 | 23.0 |
| Not needed | 104 | 17.0 |
| Can’t say | 19 | 3.1 |
| Chi2 ( | 44.09 (0.000) | |
| Ranking of HMOs | ||
| Lowest (20%) | 108 | 17.6 |
| Very low (40%) | 329 | 57.7 |
| High (60%) | 18 | 2.9 |
| Very high (80%) | 10 | 1.6 |
| Highest (100%) | 148 | 24.1 |
| Chi2 ( | 221.51 (0.000) | |
Satisfaction with HMO by different Socio-economic groups
| Quartile | Highly satisfied | Very Satisfied | Satisfied | Not satisfied | Highly not satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q 1 (poorest) | 4 (21) | 19 (18) | 46 (33) | 41 (26) | 46 (24) |
| Q 2 (very poor) | 4 (21) | 28 (27) | 39 (28) | 50 (32) | 31 (16) |
| Q 3 (poor) | 4 (21) | 44 (42) | 24 (17) | 37 (24) | 47 (25) |
| Q 4 (least poor) | 7 (37) | 13 (13) | 32 (23) | 29 (18) | 68 (35) |
| Total | 19 (100) | 104 (100) | 141 (100) | 157 (100) | 192 (100) |
| X2 ( | 1.68 (0.64) | 23.94 (0.00) | 9.62 (0.02) | 7.52 (0.06) | 22.98 (0.00) |
| Concentration Index | 0.13 | 0.01 | −0.1 | − 0.07 | 0.11 |
Logistic regression model of satisfaction with roles of HMOs
| Satisfaction with HMOs | Coefficient | Std. Err. | z | P > ızı | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | − 0.033 | 0.232 | − 0.14 | 0.886 | − 0.489 | 0.423 |
| No of people in houshold | −0.030 | 0.071 | −0.43 | 0.670 | −0.168 | 0.108 |
| Age | 0.023 | 0.014 | 1.59 | 0.112 | −0.005 | 0.051 |
| Education | 0.477 | 0.087 | 5.50 | 0.000 | 0.307 | 0.647 |
| Occupation | 0.166 | 0.082 | 2.02 | 0.044 | 0.004 | 0.327 |
| Premium | 0.086 | 0.443 | 0.19 | 0.846 | −0.782 | 0.954 |
| satisfaction with providers | −0.342 | 0.117 | −2.91 | 0.004 | −0.571 | −0.112 |
| number of others covered in hh | −0.321 | 0.078 | −4.12 | 0.000 | −0.474 | −0.168 |
| any other insurance members | −0.728 | 1.084 | −0.67 | 0.502 | −2.854 | 1.398 |
| heard about HMOs | 1.672 | 0.220 | 7.59 | 0.000 | 1.24 | 2.103 |
| socioeconomic status | −0.209 | 0.106 | −1.97 | 0.048 | −0.416 | −0.002 |
| Constant | −2.069 | 1.030 | −2.01 | 0.045 | −4.088 | −0.489 |
No of obs. = 582; LR Chi2 = 163.86; prob. > Chi2 = 0.000; Pseudo R2 = 0.2
Summary of those involved in the interviews
| S/No. | Participant | Short form | Number interviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HMO | HMO | 8 |
| 2 | CBHI representative | CB | 4 |
| 3 | Health care provider | P | 13 |
| 4 | NHIS Managers | NH | 2 |
| 5 | Ministry of Health personnel | HI | 1 |