We used panel data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey to investigate the impact of health insurance programs on reducing out-of-pocket expenditures. We employed three linear panel data models, two of which accounted for endogeneity: pooled ordinary least squares (OLS), pooled two-stage least squares (2SLS) for instrumental variable (IV), and fixed effects (FE). The study revealed that two health insurance programs had a significantly negative impact on out-of-pocket expenditures by using IV estimates. In the IV model, Askeskin decreased out-of-pocket expenditures by 34% and Askes by 55% compared with non-Askeskin and non-Askes, respectively, while Jamsostek was found to bear a nonsignificant effect on out-of-pocket expenditures. In the FE model, only Askeskin had a significant negative effect with an 11% reduction on out-of-pocket expenditures. This study showed that two large existing health insurance programs in Indonesia, Askeskin and Askes, effectively reduced household out-of-pocket expenditures. The ability of programs to offer financial protection by reducing out-of-pocket expenditures is likely to be a direct function of their benefits package and co-payment policies.

BackgroundAmong the many challenges faced by the people of Bangladesh, the effects of climate change are discernibly threatening, impacting on human settlement, agricultural production, economic development, and human health. Bangladesh is a low-income country with limited resources; its vulnerability to climate change has influenced individuals to seek out health coping strategies. The objectives of the study were to explore the different strategies/measures people employ to cope with climate sensitive diseases and sickness.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 450 households from Rajshahi and Khulna districts of Bangladesh selected through multi-stage sampling techniques, using a semi-structured questionnaire supplemented by 12 focus group discussions and 15 key informant interviews.ResultsRespondents applied 22 types of primary health coping strategies to prevent climate related diseases and sickness. To cope with health problems, 80.8% used personal treatment experiences and 99.3% sought any treatments available at village level. The percentage of respondents that visited unqualified health providers to cope with climate induced health problems was quite high, namely 92.7% visited village doctors, 75.9% drug stores, and 67.3% self-medicated. Ninety per cent of the respondents took treatment from unqualified providers as their first choice. Public health facilities were the first choice of treatment for only 11.0% of respondents. On average, every household spent Bangladesh Currency Taka 9,323 per year for the treatment of climate sensitive diseases and sickness. Only 46% of health expenditure was managed from their savings. The rest, 54% expenditure, was supported by using 24 different sources, such as social capital and the selling of family assets. The rate of out-of-pocket payment was almost 100%.ConclusionPeople are concerned about climate induced diseases and sickness and sought preventive as well as curative measures to cope with health problems. The most common and widely used climate health coping strategies among the respondents included self-medicating and seeking the health service of unqualified private health care providers. Per family spending to cope with such health problems is expensive and completely based on out of pocket payment. There is no fund pooling, community funding or health insurance program in rural areas to support the health coping of the people. Policies are needed to reduce out-of-pocket payment, to improve the quality of the unqualified providers and to extend public health services at rural areas and support climate related health coping. Collection of such knowledge on climate related health coping strategies can allow researchers to study any specific issue on health coping, and policy makers to initiate effective climate related health coping strategies for climate vulnerable people.

BackgroundLittle research has focused on the economic hardship among the insured with severe illnesses and high treatment costs, in particular, the consequence of poorer insurance coverage for high-cost illnesses. Therefore, we presented the case for identifying the experiences of insured patients with severe chronic and acute illnesses. This study identified a qualitative understanding of the economic impact of severe chronic and acute illnesses and household strategies to deal with high treatment costs.DesignInterviews were conducted with 19 insured households of three different health insurance programs with a family member that had been hospitalized for severe chronic or acute illnesses in either Banyumas or Margono Sukarjo hospitals in Banyumas, Central Java, Indonesia. A thematic analysis was applied to guide the interpretation of the data.ResultsInsured households with a family member that had been hospitalized for severe chronic and acute illnesses were greatly affected by the high treatment costs. Four major issues emerged from this qualitative study: insured patients are still burdened with high out-of-pocket payments, households adopt various strategies to cope with the high cost of treatments, households experience financial hardships, and positive and negative perceptions of the insured regarding their health insurance coverage for acute and chronic illnesses.Conclusions Askes and Jamsostek patients faced financial burdens from high cost sharing for hospital amenities, non-covered drugs, and treatments and other indirect costs. Meanwhile, Jamkesmas beneficiaries faced no financial burden for related medical services but were rather burdened with indirect costs for the carers. Households relied on internal resources to cover hospital bills as the first strategy, which included the mobilization of savings, sale of assets, and borrowing of money. External support was tapped secondarily and included financial support from extended family members, donations from neighbors and the community, and additional benefits from employers. However, insured households overall had positive perceptions of insurance.