{"title":"Classifying OECD Health Systems by Financing Structure: An Empirical Latent Profile Analysis","authors":"Jebağı Canberk Aydın, Gülbiye Yaşar","doi":"10.1002/hpm.70111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The classification of health systems by financing structure has long played a central role in comparative health policy research, but typologies have often proceeded deductively from theoretical categories. This study asks how OECD countries cluster empirically when classified using harmonised financing indicators.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Latent Profile Analysis was applied to 10 financing indicators from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database for the year 2022, covering all 38 OECD member countries. Indicators were z-standardised, and one-to six-class models were estimated. The retained solution was selected on the joint evaluation of BIC, entropy, class size, parsimony, and substantive interpretability. Between-class separation was examined using Kruskal–Wallis tests and η<sup>2</sup>[H] effect sizes as descriptive indicators only.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A five-class solution was retained. The five empirical profiles were labelled as a social insurance–oriented public financing profile, a lower-spending private-mix financing profile, a lower-spending mixed social-insurance financing profile, a tax-financed public financing profile, and a high-spending private-financing-dominant profile. Between-class separation was strongest for social insurance contributions, current health expenditure per capita, transfers from general government domestic revenue, and the public and private shares of current health expenditure.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The retained classes describe financing profiles rather than full institutional health system types. They complement, but do not replace, classical and multidimensional typologies, and make the financing dimension of health system classification empirically explicit for comparative analysis of OECD health systems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47637,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","volume":"41 5","pages":"1009-1021"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hpm.70111","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The classification of health systems by financing structure has long played a central role in comparative health policy research, but typologies have often proceeded deductively from theoretical categories. This study asks how OECD countries cluster empirically when classified using harmonised financing indicators.
Methods
Latent Profile Analysis was applied to 10 financing indicators from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database for the year 2022, covering all 38 OECD member countries. Indicators were z-standardised, and one-to six-class models were estimated. The retained solution was selected on the joint evaluation of BIC, entropy, class size, parsimony, and substantive interpretability. Between-class separation was examined using Kruskal–Wallis tests and η2[H] effect sizes as descriptive indicators only.
Results
A five-class solution was retained. The five empirical profiles were labelled as a social insurance–oriented public financing profile, a lower-spending private-mix financing profile, a lower-spending mixed social-insurance financing profile, a tax-financed public financing profile, and a high-spending private-financing-dominant profile. Between-class separation was strongest for social insurance contributions, current health expenditure per capita, transfers from general government domestic revenue, and the public and private shares of current health expenditure.
Conclusions
The retained classes describe financing profiles rather than full institutional health system types. They complement, but do not replace, classical and multidimensional typologies, and make the financing dimension of health system classification empirically explicit for comparative analysis of OECD health systems.
期刊介绍:
Policy making and implementation, planning and management are widely recognized as central to effective health systems and services and to better health. Globalization, and the economic circumstances facing groups of countries worldwide, meanwhile present a great challenge for health planning and management. The aim of this quarterly journal is to offer a forum for publications which direct attention to major issues in health policy, planning and management. The intention is to maintain a balance between theory and practice, from a variety of disciplines, fields and perspectives. The Journal is explicitly international and multidisciplinary in scope and appeal: articles about policy, planning and management in countries at various stages of political, social, cultural and economic development are welcomed, as are those directed at the different levels (national, regional, local) of the health sector. Manuscripts are invited from a spectrum of different disciplines e.g., (the social sciences, management and medicine) as long as they advance our knowledge and understanding of the health sector. The Journal is therefore global, and eclectic.