Table 9 Financial protection

HEFs

Reduced by 35 % on average

Reduced by 42 % for poorer households [29]

n/a

Reduced (no year indicated) [116]

SUBO

Reduced by 18 % for the poor [117]

n/a

n/a

URBMI

n/a

n/a

n/a

NRCMS

Mixed evidence: Similar [118],

Not reduced [90]

Decreased cost of a delivery, increased cost of an outpatient visit (more expensive type of care)

OOP effects smaller for 1st income quintile [119]

2006: no reduction at 10 and 20 % thresholds [120]

n/a

India:

Protection from catastrophic spending is limited since in India the main determinants of catastrophic spending are outpatient services and medicines which are not covered by the vast majority of the schemes [24]

2004: 5 % of total population pushed below the poverty line [24]

RSBY

Total and outpatient expenditure decreased slightly stronger in RSBY districts versus non-RSBY district (but maybe subject to confounding effects) [121]

n/a

n/a

Yeshasvini

n/a

Lower borrowings/payments out of savings in case of surgery [65]

n/a

Rajiv Aarogyasri

Small reduction

n/a

n/a

Kalaignar

n/a

n/a

n/a

Vajapayee Arogyasri

n/a

n/a

n/a

Indonesia

n/a

Declined (and low compared to average OOP) [60]

Lower among Jamkesmas beneficiaries than for other insured groups [33]

n/a

Mongolia

2012: OOP payments in rural areas slightly smaller than in urban areas and ten times higher in 5th income quintile than in 1st income quintile [122]

2009: Five times higher in 1st than in 5th income quintile, two times higher in 1st income quintile than across all quintiles [49]

2011:1.6 % of households in 1st quintile [88]

2012: 5.5 % of total households (at 10 % threshold); 1.1 % of total households (at 40 % threshold) [122]

2012: approx. 1 % [122]

Philippines

n/a

2009: 1st income quintile: 0.5 %; 5th income quintile: 2 % [35]

n/a

Thailand

2000–2004: OOP share of total or non-food household consumption decreases significantly, especially in the 1st and 2nd income quintiles (30 % reduction) [123]

2000–2006: 1st quintile reduction of about 3/4 ^a [124]

Incidence and intensity of catastrophic expenditure declines particularly among 1st and 2nd income quintiles especially in rural areas [123]

Dropped from 6.8 % in 1996 to 2.8 % in 2008 among UCS members in the poorest quintile (at 10 % threshold) [125]

2004–2009: decreasing in households with one or more UCS member(s) [125]

Vietnam

Similar average OOP spending for all quintiles [53]

From 2002 to 2010: hardly changed in 1st and 2nd income quintiles [37]

2010: 1st quintile 4.7 %; 2nd quintile 4.5 % [54]

From 2002 to 2010:% of households has hardly changed for the 1st income quintile and decreased from 11 % to 6 % for the 2nd quintile [37]

2010: 1st quintile 5.4 %; 2nd quintile 6 % [54]