Do public healthcare programs make societies more equal? Cross-country evidence on subjective wellbeing.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ryan Joseph R Dizon
{"title":"Do public healthcare programs make societies more equal? Cross-country evidence on subjective wellbeing.","authors":"Ryan Joseph R Dizon","doi":"10.1186/s13561-023-00467-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Universal health coverage (UHC) aims to provide quality healthcare services and safeguard the population from the financial burden of catastrophic health expenditure. Its primary objectives are to improve longevity and enhance overall quality of life. This study investigates the relationship between UHC and the inequality in subjective wellbeing (SWB) and explores whether public health programs can reduce social inequality. By employing SWB inequality as a measure, we go beyond the conventional income-centric approach to assess social inequality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The SWB data used in this study are derived from the repeated cross-sectional survey obtained from the European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS). We adopt an observational study design and employ statistical techniques, such as ordinary least squares, Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, and the recentered influence function (RIF). The RIF, in particular, allows us to characterise the entire distribution of SWB, rather than focusing on a single point.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>UHC programs are negatively associated with SWB inequality (-0.070, significant at 5%). The negative association is observed at the 5<sup>th</sup>, 50<sup>th</sup>, and 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles of the SWB distribution, whilst the association becomes positive at the 95<sup>th</sup> percentile. UHC programs do not contribute to the SWB inequality gap.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UHC programs exhibit an inequality-reduction property when the inequality is not severe or when countries are more equal. However, their effectiveness diminishes in the presence of extreme inequality. Health programs do not contribute to the existing SWB inequality gap between developed and developing countries. Strengthening the two dimensions of the UHC program (i.e., service coverage and financial protection) will ensure better health and wellbeing for all, and potentially foster a more equal and inclusive society.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668488/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00467-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Universal health coverage (UHC) aims to provide quality healthcare services and safeguard the population from the financial burden of catastrophic health expenditure. Its primary objectives are to improve longevity and enhance overall quality of life. This study investigates the relationship between UHC and the inequality in subjective wellbeing (SWB) and explores whether public health programs can reduce social inequality. By employing SWB inequality as a measure, we go beyond the conventional income-centric approach to assess social inequality.

Methods: The SWB data used in this study are derived from the repeated cross-sectional survey obtained from the European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS). We adopt an observational study design and employ statistical techniques, such as ordinary least squares, Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, and the recentered influence function (RIF). The RIF, in particular, allows us to characterise the entire distribution of SWB, rather than focusing on a single point.

Results: UHC programs are negatively associated with SWB inequality (-0.070, significant at 5%). The negative association is observed at the 5th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the SWB distribution, whilst the association becomes positive at the 95th percentile. UHC programs do not contribute to the SWB inequality gap.

Conclusions: UHC programs exhibit an inequality-reduction property when the inequality is not severe or when countries are more equal. However, their effectiveness diminishes in the presence of extreme inequality. Health programs do not contribute to the existing SWB inequality gap between developed and developing countries. Strengthening the two dimensions of the UHC program (i.e., service coverage and financial protection) will ensure better health and wellbeing for all, and potentially foster a more equal and inclusive society.

公共医疗保健计划使社会更加平等吗?关于主观幸福感的跨国证据。
背景:全民健康覆盖(UHC)旨在提供高质量的卫生保健服务,并保护人民免受灾难性卫生支出的经济负担。其主要目标是延长寿命和提高整体生活质量。本研究探讨了全民健康覆盖与主观幸福感不平等之间的关系,并探讨了公共卫生项目是否可以减少社会不平等。通过采用SWB不平等作为衡量标准,我们超越了传统的以收入为中心的方法来评估社会不平等。方法:本研究中使用的主观幸福感数据来自欧洲价值观研究(EVS)和世界价值观调查(WVS)的重复横断面调查。我们采用观察性研究设计,并采用统计技术,如普通最小二乘法、瓦哈卡-布林德分解和重中心影响函数(RIF)。特别是RIF,它使我们能够描述SWB的整个分布,而不是集中在一个点上。结果:全民健康覆盖计划与SWB不平等呈负相关(-0.070,显著性为5%)。在幸福感分布的第5、第50和第75百分位数处观察到负相关,而在第95百分位数处观察到正相关。全民健康覆盖规划不会导致SWB不平等差距。结论:当不平等不严重或国家比较平等时,全民健康覆盖规划显示出减少不平等的特性。然而,在极端不平等的情况下,它们的效力会减弱。健康项目并没有导致发达国家和发展中国家之间存在的社会福利不平等差距。加强全民健康覆盖规划的两个方面(即服务覆盖和财务保护)将确保改善所有人的健康和福祉,并有可能促进一个更加平等和包容的社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信