Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

Abstract

BackgroundEquity in health care entails payment for health services according to the capacity to pay and the receipt of benefits according to need. In Uganda, as in many African countries, although equity is extolled in government policy documents, not much is known about who pays for, and who benefits from, health services. This paper assesses both equity in the financing and distribution of health care benefits in Uganda.MethodsData are drawn from the most recent nationally representative Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10. Equity in health financing is assessed considering the main domestic health financing sources (i.e., taxes and direct out-of-pocket payments). This is achieved using bar charts and standard concentration and Kakwani indices. Benefit incidence analysis is used to assess the distribution of health services for both public and non-public providers across socio-economic groups and the need for care. Need is assessed using limitations in functional ability while socioeconomic groups are created using per adult equivalent consumption expenditure.ResultsOverall, health financing in Uganda is marginally progressive; the rich pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor. The various taxes are more progressive than out-of-pocket payments (e.g., the Kakwani index of personal income tax is 0.195 compared with 0.064 for out-of-pocket payments). However, taxes are a much smaller proportion of total health sector financing compared with out-of-pocket payments. The distribution of total health sector services benefitsis pro-rich. The richest quintile receives 19.2% of total benefits compared to the 17.9% received by the poorest quintile. The rich also receive a much higher share of benefits relative to their need. Benefits from public health units are pro-poor while hospital based care, in both public and non-public sectors are pro-rich.ConclusionThere is a renewed interest in ensuring equity in the financing and use of health services. Based on the results in this paper, it would seem that in order to safeguard such equity, there is a need for policy that focuses on addressing the health needs of the poor while continuing to ensure that the burden of financing health services does not rest disproportionately on the poor.

Inequity in Health Care Financing in Iran: Progressive or Regressive Mechanism?

“…They found that in all four countries, the payment pattern for health was regressive so that the lower income group bore greater burden of health payments. In their study performed in Uganda, Kwesiga et al [18] assessed the taxes and out of pocket health expenditures. They found that the health financing system of this country was progressive and the rich paid a greater proportion of their income for health compared to the poor.…”

How to do (or not to do) … a health financing incidence analysis

“…A complementary analysis, BIA, is also used to assess the pro-poorness of the health-care delivery system and the extent to which those that need health services are benefiting according to need ( McIntyre and Ataguba 2011 ; Wagstaff, 2012 ). Together, these analyses (FIA and BIA), which have been combined in recent research ( Akazili et al 2012 ; Ataguba and McIntyre 2012 ; Mtei et al 2012 ; Kwesiga et al 2015 ; Asante et al 2017 ), provide an overall picture of how the health financing system of a country is performing on equity grounds and progressing towards UHC. For a holistic picture of equity, practitioners are encouraged to assess both distributions.…”

System-wide analysis of health financing equity in Cambodia: a study protocol

“…Consumption expenditure is generally recognised as being more stable, reliable and easier to obtain than income. 40 The pros and cons of different measures of ATP are discussed in detail elsewhere. 40 …”