Abstract
Comparing health care systems is important for several reasons. E.g. lower-resource health care systems can learn from higher-resource ones, and country-specific progress can be made. Previous rankings of health care systems have been based on objective factors such as the number of available hospital beds or health care spending. An index is considered here that includes a subjective level that is intended to represent access to the health care system. Therefore, this study investigates the divergence between subjective and objective indices related to health care expenditure, with a focus on the influence of involuntary and voluntary payments. Utilizing the Rational Choice Theory as a framework, it explores how individual preferences and perceived benefits affect these indices. The analysis reveals that social insurance contributions, which are mandatory and beyond individual control, are evaluated differently in subjective indices compared to objective indices. This discrepancy is less pronounced for voluntary expenditures, where individuals have decision-making power. The findings highlight significant variations in the correlations between macroeconomic health care indicators and the indices, emphasizing the critical role of autonomy in financial decisions related to health care.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference36 articles.
1. A Conceptual Framework to Measure Performance of the Public Health System;A Handler;Am J Public Health,2001
2. Investing in health. Benchmarking health systems;E Nolte;The Nuffield Trust,2006
3. The emergence of global attention to health systems strengthening;T Hafner;Health Policy Plan,2013
4. The County Health Rankings: rationale and methods.;PL Remington;Popul Health Metr,2015