Skip to main content

Table 6 Distribution of financial health benefits of overall spending on institutional delivery

From: How equitable is health spending on curative services and institutional delivery in Malawi? Evidence from a quasi-longitudinal benefit incidence analysis

Health care provider 2004 2010 2015 Diff. 2010–2004 Diff. 2015–2010 Diff. 2015–2004
CI (SE) CI (SE) CI (SE) CI (SE) CI (SE) CI (SE)
All health facilities 0.036b
(0.022)
0.078a***
(0.021)
0.028b
(0.018)
0.042
(0.030)
-0.05*
(0.027)
-0.008
(0.028)
Public health facilities 0.033a
(0.024)
0.006b
(0.017)
-0.071a***
(0.014)
-0.027
(0.029)
-0.077***
(0.022)
-0.104***
(0.028)
Public hospitals 0.135a***
(0.041)
0.123a***
(0.025)
0.074a***
(0.025)
-0.012
(0.048)
-0.049
(0.035)
-0.061
(0.048)
Public health centers -0.106a***
(0.027)
-0.077a***
(0.024)
-0.145a***
(0.018)
0.029
(0.036)
-0.068**
(0.030)
-0.039
(0.032)
CHAM health facilities 0.121a***
(0.042)
0.056a
(0.041)
-0.037b
(0.044)
-0.065
(0.059)
-0.093
(0.060)
-0.158***
(0.061)
CHAM hospitals 0.154a***
(0.060)
0.132a**
(0.067)
0.024
(0.058)
-0.022
(0.090)
-0.108
(0.088)
-0.13
(0.083)
CHAM health centers -0.071a
(0.053)
0.069b
(0.063)
0.091
(0.081)
0.140*
(0.082)
0.022
(0.104)
0.162*
(0.099)
Private health facilities 0.102a
(0.113)
0.099b
(0.100)
0.096
(0.112)
-0.003
(0.151)
-0.003
(0.151)
-0.006
(0.159)
  1. Note : CI concentration index, SE standard errors; dominance test: a = dominance, b= non-dominance, c= concentration curve and line of equality cross; +: for private health facilities, only the OOP expenditure was included
  2. *, **, *** statistically significant at the 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively