Health Equity and Financial Protection: Part I
Table U3: Inequality in Health Care Utilization, Unstandardized
Quintiles of pcexp Lowest quintile 2 3 4 Highest quintile
Standard concentration index Conc. index with inequality-aversion parameter 3 Conc. index with inequality-aversion parameter 4
Standard achievement index Achievement index with inequality-aversion parameter 3 Achievement index with inequality-aversion parameter 4
CHC
General hospital
Private facility
0.3832 (0.0161) 0.3212 (0.0154) 0.3206 (0.0167) 0.3064 (0.0196) 0.1802 (0.0205)
0.1578 (0.0113) 0.2447 (0.0140) 0.3053 (0.0167) 0.4865 (0.0256) 0.7295 (0.0339)
0.1610 (0.0106) 0.3940 (0.0259) 0.4478 (0.0218) 0.5251 (0.0231) 0.7036 (0.0415)
0.1167 (0.0166) 0.1592 (0.0247) 0.1832 (0.0302)
0.3050 (0.0132) 0.4210 (0.0168) 0.4843 (0.0191)
0.2308 (0.0153) 0.3460 (0.0181) 0.4253 (0.0192)
0.3376 (0.0084) 0.3504 (0.0096) 0.3577 (0.0108)
0.2674 (0.0075) 0.2228 (0.0076) 0.1984 (0.0081)
0.3433 (0.0098) 0.2919 (0.0100) 0.2565 (0.0100)
Source: Authors. Note: standard errors displayed in brackets.
facilities. The corresponding variables measure the number of outpatient visits to these health care providers during a period of one year. In the case of CHCs, the average number of visits is 0.3832 for the first quintile, and this decreases monotonically with income to 0.1802 for the last quintile. CHC outpatient visits are thus more frequent among the poor. The opposite is true for outpatient visits to general hospitals and private facilities, which increase with income. The difference in the pattern of utilization between CHCs, on the one hand, and general hospitals and private facilities, on the other, is reflected in their corresponding concentration indexes. The concentration index of CHCs is clearly negative ( 0.1167), revealing higher utilization by poorer individuals. In contrast, the concentration indexes for visits to general hospitals (0.3050) and private facilities (0.2308) are clearly positive, indicating higher utilization by richer individuals.
56