Cargando…
Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis
BACKGROUND: Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) represents out-of-pocket payment as a share of household income. Most previous studies have focused on incidence aspects when assessing health policy effects. However, because CHE incidence is a binary variable, the effect of the health policy could...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9650821/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36367579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00403-w |
_version_ | 1784828108538380288 |
---|---|
author | Koo, Jun Hyuk Jung, Hyun Woo |
author_facet | Koo, Jun Hyuk Jung, Hyun Woo |
author_sort | Koo, Jun Hyuk |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) represents out-of-pocket payment as a share of household income. Most previous studies have focused on incidence aspects when assessing health policy effects. However, because CHE incidence is a binary variable, the effect of the health policy could not accurately be evaluated. On the contrary, the intensity of CHE is a continuous variable that can yield completely different results from previous studies. This study reassesses the coverage expansion plan for four serious diseases using the intensity of CHE in Korea. METHODS: We used the Korea Health Panel Study from 2013 to 2015 to conduct the analysis. The study population is households with chronic diseases patients. We divided the population into two groups: the policy beneficiary group, i.e., households with a patient of any of the four serious diseases, and the non-beneficiary group. A difference-in-difference model was employed to compare the variation in the intensity and incidence of CHE between the two groups. We defined the incidence of CHE as when the ratio of out-of-pocket medical expenses to household income is more than a threshold of 10%, and the intensity of CHE is the height of the ratio subtracting the threshold 10%. RESULTS: The increased rate of CHE intensity in households with four serious diseases was lower than that in households with other chronic diseases. The interaction term, which represents the effect of the policy, has a significant impact on the intensity but not on the incidence of CHE. CONCLUSIONS: CHE indicators should be applied differently according to the purpose of policy evaluation. The incidence of CHE should be used as the final achievement indicator, and the intensity of CHE should be used as the process indicator. Furthermore, because CHE has an inherent characteristic that is measured by the ratio of household income to medical expenses, to lower this, a differential out-of-pocket maximum policy for each income class is more appropriate than a policy for strengthening the coverage for specific diseases. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13561-022-00403-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9650821 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96508212022-11-15 Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis Koo, Jun Hyuk Jung, Hyun Woo Health Econ Rev Research BACKGROUND: Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) represents out-of-pocket payment as a share of household income. Most previous studies have focused on incidence aspects when assessing health policy effects. However, because CHE incidence is a binary variable, the effect of the health policy could not accurately be evaluated. On the contrary, the intensity of CHE is a continuous variable that can yield completely different results from previous studies. This study reassesses the coverage expansion plan for four serious diseases using the intensity of CHE in Korea. METHODS: We used the Korea Health Panel Study from 2013 to 2015 to conduct the analysis. The study population is households with chronic diseases patients. We divided the population into two groups: the policy beneficiary group, i.e., households with a patient of any of the four serious diseases, and the non-beneficiary group. A difference-in-difference model was employed to compare the variation in the intensity and incidence of CHE between the two groups. We defined the incidence of CHE as when the ratio of out-of-pocket medical expenses to household income is more than a threshold of 10%, and the intensity of CHE is the height of the ratio subtracting the threshold 10%. RESULTS: The increased rate of CHE intensity in households with four serious diseases was lower than that in households with other chronic diseases. The interaction term, which represents the effect of the policy, has a significant impact on the intensity but not on the incidence of CHE. CONCLUSIONS: CHE indicators should be applied differently according to the purpose of policy evaluation. The incidence of CHE should be used as the final achievement indicator, and the intensity of CHE should be used as the process indicator. Furthermore, because CHE has an inherent characteristic that is measured by the ratio of household income to medical expenses, to lower this, a differential out-of-pocket maximum policy for each income class is more appropriate than a policy for strengthening the coverage for specific diseases. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13561-022-00403-w. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9650821/ /pubmed/36367579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00403-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Koo, Jun Hyuk Jung, Hyun Woo Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title | Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title_full | Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title_fullStr | Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title_short | Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
title_sort | which indicator should be used? a comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9650821/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36367579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00403-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koojunhyuk whichindicatorshouldbeusedacomparisonbetweentheincidenceandintensityofcatastrophichealthexpenditureusingdifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT junghyunwoo whichindicatorshouldbeusedacomparisonbetweentheincidenceandintensityofcatastrophichealthexpenditureusingdifferenceindifferenceanalysis |