Cited by 1,019Healthcare Systems and ReformsGlobal Health Care IssuesEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

Progress on catastrophic health spending in 133 countries: a retrospective observational study

Open access
Wagstaff, Adam, Flores, Gabriela, Hsu, Justine, Smitz, Marc-François, Chepynoga, Kateryna, Buisman, Leander R, van Wilgenburg, Kim, Eozenou, Patrick·2018·The Lancet Global Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of universal health coverage (UHC) requires inter alia that families who get needed health care do not suffer undue financial hardship as a result. This can be measured by the percentage of people in households whose out-of-pocket health expenditures are large relative to their income or consumption. We aimed to estimate the global incidence of catastrophic health spending, trends between 2000 and 2010, and associations between catastrophic health spending and macroeconomic and health system variables at the country level. METHODS: We did a retrospective observational study of health spending using data obtained from household surveys. Of 1566 potentially suitable household surveys, 553 passed quality checks, covering 133 countries between 1984 and 2015. We defined health spending as catastrophic when it exceeded 10% or 25% of household consumption. We estimated global incidence by aggregating up from every country, using a survey for the year in question when available, and interpolation and model-based estimates otherwise. We used multiple regression to explore the relation between a country's incidence of catastrophic spending and gross domestic product (GDP) per person, the Gini coefficient for income inequality, and the share of total health expenditure spent by social security funds, other government agencies, private insurance schemes, and non-profit institutions. FINDINGS: The global incidence of catastrophic spending at the 10% threshold was estimated as 9·7% in 2000, 11·4% in 2005, and 11·7% in 2010. Globally, 808 million people in 2010 incurred catastrophic health spending. Across 94 countries with two or more survey datapoints, the population-weighted median annual rate of change of catastrophic payment incidence was positive whatever catastrophic payment incidence measure was used. Incidence of catastrophic payments was correlated positively with GDP per person and the share of GDP spent on health, and incidence correlated negatively with the share of total health spending channelled through social security funds and other government agencies. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of the population that is supposed to be covered by health insurance schemes or by national or subnational health services is a poor indicator of financial protection. Increasing the share of GDP spent on health is not sufficient to reduce catastrophic payment incidence; rather, what is required is increasing the share of total health expenditure that is prepaid, particularly through taxes and mandatory contributions. FUNDING: Rockefeller Foundation, Ministry of Health of Japan, UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30429-1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Widely used UHC indicators such as use rates and catastrophic health expenditure are generally reported at the national level and provide little insight into within-country variation or reasons for local performance.

    “However, such statistics are generally reported at the national level and provide little insight into within-country variation or reasons for levels of performance at local levels [7–9].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagstaff, A., Flores, G., Hsu, J., Smitz, M.-F., Chepynoga, K., Buisman, L. R., van Wilgenburg, K., & Eozenou, P.
Affiliations
  • World Bank (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Wagstaff, Adam
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
e169-e179
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2772759979
Cited by
1,019
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 226 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 283 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
143.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Rockefeller Foundation
  • Department for International Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Global Health Care Issues
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
catastrophic health expenditure, out-of-pocket health expenditure, financial protection, universal health coverage, household health expenditure, health expenditure financing, health insurance coverage, income inequality, GDP per capita
MeSH terms
Catastrophic Illness, Health Expenditures, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Global Health, Universal Health Insurance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review