Catastrophic health spending in Europe: equity and policy implications of different calculation methods

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the equity and policy implications of different methods to calculate catastrophic health spending.MethodsWe used routinely collected data from recent household budget surveys in 14 European countries. We calculated the incidence of catastrophic health spending and its distribution across consumption quintiles using four methods. We compared the budget share method, which is used to monitor universal health coverage (UHC) in the sustainable development goals (SDGs), with three other well-established methods: actual food spending; partial normative food spending; and normative spending on food, housing and utilities.FindingsCountry estimates of the incidence of catastrophic health spending were generally similar using the normative spending on food, housing and utilities method and the budget share method at the 10% threshold of a household’s ability to pay. The former method found that catastrophic spending was concentrated in the poorest quintile in all countries, whereas with the budget share method catastrophic spending was largely experienced by richer households. This is because the threshold for catastrophic health spending in the budget share method is the same for all households, while the other methods generated effective thresholds that varied across households. The normative spending on food, housing and utilities method was the only one that produced an effective threshold that rose smoothly with total household expenditure.ConclusionThe budget share method used in the SDGs overestimates financial hardship among rich households and underestimates hardship among poor households. This raises concerns about the ability of the SDG process to generate appropriate guidance for policy on UHC.

The impact of health reform in Iran on catastrophic health expenditures: Equity and policy implications

“…Bearing in mind that most household resources are absorbed by food expenditures, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries, other approaches to measure catastrophic health expenditure use nonfood expenditure as the denominator, which can better distinguish between poor and rich . The WHO European Regional Office recommends the use of actual food spending (in which OOP is considered as a share of nonfood expenditure) and partial normative food spending (in which OOP is considered as a share of capacity to pay) …”

Individual vs household: How do different calculation patterns of catastrophic health expenditure matter? New evidence from China's critical illness insurance programme

“…CHE is often justified as a way to create a heavy burden to prevent necessary health care, thereby lowering the living standards of residents. CHE can be defined as health spending that exceeds a predefined percentage or threshold of a household's ability to pay for health care . Currently, many families worldwide suffer undue financial hardship because of direct high medical expenses and the loss of income associated with reduced labour productivity .…”

“…Moreover, the ability to pay can be interpreted in different ways, leading to four disparate calculation methods of CHE. The main distinction among these methods is whether a household's entire budget is available for health care spending . Two typical examples are the public prepaid plans in France and Japan.…”

Achieving SDG 3.8.2: Financial Protection Against Catastrophic Health Expenditure in Malaysia

“…On the other hand, our ndings may be an underestimation of the true number of CHE. According to Cylus et al, the budget share method overestimated nancial hardship among rich households and underestimated hardship among poor households(16). However, this nding was generated among the European population, years old was 2.34 times more likely to suffer CHE, whereas the median OOP health spending among older household was in fact,…”