4.6 Article

Out-of-pocket healthcare spending by the poor and chronically ill in the Republic of Korea

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 97, Issue 5, Pages 804-811

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.080184

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [K01DA01635801] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We estimated out-of-pocket health care spending and out-of-pocket spending burden ratio employing household equivalent income in the Republic of Korea. We examined variations in out-of-pocket spending, estimated out-of-pocket spending burden ratio employing household equivalent income, and identified factors associated with out-of-pocket spending. Methods. We used the 1998 Korean National Health and Nutrition Survey, a nationally representative survey of 39060 individuals. Our analyses examined out-of-pocket spending, out-of-pocket spending burden ratio, and health care use by socioeconomic status, insurance type, health care facility type, and chronic condition after we controlled for sociodemographic variables. Results. The lowest income quintile spent 12.5% of their total income out-of-pocket on medical expenditures, which was 6 times that of the highest income quintile (2%). Among those with 3 or more chronic conditions, low-income Koreans had the highest out-of-pocket spending burden ratio (20%), which was 5 times the spending burden among high-income Koreans (4%). In multivariate analyses, the number of chronic conditions, insurance type, health care use, and health care facility type were associated with out-of-pocket spending. Conclusions. Out-of-pocket spending in Korea is regressive, because lower-income groups pay disproportionately more of their income compared with higher-income groups. Low-income individuals with multiple chronic conditions are particularly vulnerable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available