Efficiency, equity and feasibility of strategies to identify the poor: an application to premium exemptions under national health insurance in Ghana Caroline Jehu-Appiah, Genevieve Aryeetey, Ernst Spaan, Irene Agyepong, Rob Baltussen Health Policy 2010;95:166-73 Saly, Senegal 2011 Background • Currently many sub-Saharan African countries are exploring ways to replace user fees at point of service use with more equitable alternatives. • Many are experimenting with social and community health insurance • Regardless of what financing mechanisms are used, exemptions are needed for the poorest • However there are challenges with effectively identifying and targeting the most vulnerable groups for exemptions. Background cont’ • Ghana passed a National Health Insurance (NHI) act in 2003 and by 2010 66% enrolment (NHIA) • Empirical evidence shows enrolment among the poor is low (Asante and Aikins 2008). • Efforts to identify and enrol the poor through premium exemptions at an early stage of the NHIS are required. • Difficulties in identification and targeting of the poor and uncertainties as to the most cost-effective approaches to use. Objectives • To identify potential strategies to identify the poor, and assesses their feasibility, efficiency and equity ▫ Estimate costs of each strategy, and present tradeoffs between feasibility (defined as practical ability to identify the poor in a given context), efficiency (defined by cost per exempted poor individual, and equity (defined by error of exclusion) Methods • A literature search in Medline. 62 articles selected and classified into 4 broad strategies to identify the poor: (1) means testing, (2) proxy means testing (PMT), (3) geographic targeting (GT) and (4) participatory welfare ranking (PWR). • To estimate the implementation costs, cost models were developed on the basis of a combination of empirical estimates and expert opinion, using the 2008 price levels and costs and errors of in- and exclusion of these strategies TC Survey Cost P0 x Peligible x Pr emium • Sensitivity analysis was employed to assess the impact of varying assumptions on study results and study conclusions Identifying the Poor by Household Income Means Testing (LSMS) Pros of LSMS’s • Benchmark in poverty assessment • Objective , high quality assessment of HH income • Both absolute and relative poverty analysis of welfare Cons of LSMS’s • High cost • Measure income defined poverty and not its broader dimensions • Measure HH and not individual welfare • Do not disaggregate beyond regional level • Small sample size Targeting the Poor by Household Indicators - Proxy Means testing (DHS,CWIQ) Pros • Potential to provide alternative welfare ranking • Lower administrative costs and information on the key indicators is more widely available. • Effectiveness-correctly predicts poverty status from 80-84% of its participants (Johannsen 2006). Cons • Limited to relative analysis of welfare • Exclusion of 16-20% of poor (Johansen,2006) • Asset indices say nothing about absolute poverty • Cannot be used to monitor changes in poverty over time • Measured at HH and not individual level Geographic targeting (poverty maps) Pros Cons • Relatively easy to implement • Leakages to non poor especially in urban areas • Possible to map at the district, sub district levels • Data availability • Narrow targeting improves coverage of poor • Requires High level of Econometric Expertise • Village level targeting more effective than regional targeting at reducing leakages Poverty Mapping • Maps out poverty incidence for whole country • Allows for Blanket exemptions of whole districts based on incidence of poverty • At no cost to MOH Targeting by Participatory Welfare Ranking (PWR) Pros • Simple, transparent Cons • Low cost • Ineffectieve in larger communities urban areas • Widely accepted – community participation and ownership • High level of skill and facilitation • Effectiveness- 82% • Risk of sampling and respondent bias • Useful in combination with Geographic targeting • Captures new settlements, street children, ophans • Criteria differs from community to community therefore results are not comparable Gt. Accra Region 12.000 10.000 ThousandS $ 8.000 PWR 6.000 4.000 PROXY MEANS TESTING 2.000 0 Accra Tema Ga Dangbe Dangbe West East GEO TARGETING Thousands $ Upper West Region 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 PWR PROXY MEANS TESTING GEO TARGETING District Nadawilli Strategy Costs Cost of survey (g) Total Cost Cost per (j)=(g)+(h) identified poor individual (efficiency indicator) (j)=(i)/(f) incremental cost per extra exempted poor individual PWR 45,799 356,566 402,365 11.63 PMT 70.491 404,930 475,421 12.57 23 536,189 536,189 11.63 7 GT Tema Costs of premium exemptions (h)=(f)*φ PWR 239,855 1,276,787 1,516,642 41.44 PMT 407,393 1,343,473 1,750,866 43.76 69 3,252,962 3,252,962 66.67 171 GT Discussion • PMT, PWR and GT achieve efficiency and equity objectives to different degrees • PWR appears the least costly and therefore most efficient strategy, but is also the least equitable. • GT covers all (poor) individuals in a given area, and is therefore the most equitable but also the most costly. • Incremental costs of exempting one extra poor individual range between US$7 and US$ 171. • Choice highly dependent on poverty setting and feasibility of implementation • Selection of a strategy therefore has to be contextualised, and it is not advisable to apply a single strategy across the entire country. Policy dilemma • TC of paying for insurance premiums exemptions for all poor households in Ghana is $22 million • These costs consume 4% of total health resource envelope for 2008 ($513 million) and • 16% of total NHI budget ($142 million) • Policy dilemma and tough choices posed by the gap between the desired mandate and financing constraints Study limitations • Analysis is based on literature review and expert opinion • Research is needed to verify assumptions • Partial assessment of various strategies and excludes the perceptions of the community and policy makers on the acceptability of various approaches • Thank you