SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 2

Horizontal Equity in Delivery of Health Care in Turkey

SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİNDEN FAYDALANMA AÇISINDAN HAKKANİYET

Onur ÖZSOY
Sezer ALCAN
Pages
549–580
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Decomposition of the concentration index shows that major factor causing inequity is logarithmic equivalised expenditure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Achievement of the access of all citizens to all health services is a major policy goal in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper empirically analyzes whether utilization of healthcare services in Turkey in 2002 and 2003 was consistent with horizontal equity principle.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Decomposition of the concentration index shows that major factor causing inequity is logarithmic equivalised expenditure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Achievement of the access of all citizens to all health services is a major policy goal in Turkey. This paper empirically analyzes whether utilization of healthcare services in Turkey in 2002 and 2003 was consistent with horizontal equity principle. The horizontal inequity index method was used to examine equity in ambulatory services, hospitalization and preventive and other health care services. There is marked inequity unfavorable to lower quintiles of equivalised expenditure with respect to all three health care use variables. Horizontal inequity is highest for preventive and other healthcare services. Decomposition of the concentration index shows that major factor causing inequity is logarithmic equivalised expenditure.

Özet

Herkesin sağlık hizmetlerine erişim sağlaması Türk Sağlık Politikasının en önemli hedeflerindenbirisidir. Bu çalışma 2002 ve 2003 yıllarına ilişkin veri seti kullanılarak, Türk Sağlık Sisteminin, eşit ihtiyacaeşit tedavi uygulanması şeklinde tanımlanan yatay hakkaniyet prensibi ile uyumlu olup olmadığınıincelemektedir. Analiz, ayakta alınan sağlık hizmetleri, yatarak hastane hizmetleri ile koruyucu ve diğer sağlıkhizmetleri için, yatay hakkaniyetsizlik endeksi yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan analizsonucunda incelenen tüm sağlık hizmetleri açısından istatistiki olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bulunan KonsantrasyonEndeksi 2002 ve 2003 yıllarında Türkiye’de eşit ihtiyaca eşit tedavi verilmediğini ortaya koymuştur.Hakkaniyetsizlik koruyucu ve diğer sağlık hizmetleri için diğer sağlık hizmetlerine göre daha yüksektir.Konsantrasyon Endeksinin ayrıştırılması sonucunda hakkaniyetsizliğe neden olan en büyük etkeninölçeklendirilmiş logaritmik harcamalar olduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZSOY, O., ALCAN, S. (2022). Horizontal Equity in Delivery of Health Care in Turkey. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 2, 549–580. https://ajindex.com/articles/442888

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abasolo, Ignacio, Rob Manning, and Andrew M. Jones (2001). “Equity in Utilization of and Access to Public-Sector GPs in Spain.” Applied Economics 33 (3): 349-364.
  2. Alcan, Sezer ve Onur Özsoy (2017), Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Finansmanında Hakkaniyet, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 72, No. 1, s. 183 – 219. Aran, Meltem, Sırma Demir, Özlem Sarıca ve Hakan Yazıcı (2010), “Türkiye’de Yoksulluk ve Eşitsizlikte Değişmeler (2003-2006), Refah ve Sosyal Politika Analitik Çalışma Programı”, Çalışma Raporu Sayı: 1 (Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı ve Dünya Bankası) d’Uva, Teresa Bago, and Andrew M. Jones. (2009). “Health Care Utilisation in Europe: New Evidence from the ECHP.” Journal of health economics 28 (2): 265-279. d’Uva, Teresa Bago, Andrew M. Jones, and Eddy Van Doorslaer (2009). “Measurement of Horizontal Inequity in Health Care Utilisation Using European Panel Data.” Journal of health economics 28 (2): 280-289.
  3. Boadway, Robin W., and David E. Wildasin. (1984). Public sector economics. Boston: Little Brown. Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. (2005). Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. (2013). Regression analysis of count data (Vol. 53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Deaton, Angus. (1997). The analysis of household surveys: a microeconometric approach to development policy. Washington DC: World Bank Publications. Deb, Partha, and Pravin K. Trivedi. (1997). Demand for medical care by the elderly: a finite mixture approach. Journal of applied Econometrics, 12(3), 313-336.
  6. Deb, Partha, and Pravin K. Trivedi. (2002). The structure of demand for health care: latent class versus two-part models. Journal of health economics, 21(4), 601-625.
  7. Fleurbaey, Marc, and Erik Schokkaert. (2011). Equity in health and health care. In: M.V. Pauly, T.G. Mcguire, P.P. Barros, (Ed.) Handbook of health economics vol. 2. (pp. 1003–1092). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gerdtham, Ulf‐G. (1997). Equity in health care utilization: further tests based on hurdle models and Swedish micro data. Health economics, 6(3), 303-319.
  8. Gerdtham, Ulf‐G., and Pravin K. Trivedi. (2001). Equity in Swedish health care reconsidered: new results based on the finite mixture model. Health Economics, 10(6), 565-572.
  9. Grossman, Michael. (1972). On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political Economy, 80(2), 223-255.
  10. Gurmu, Shiferaw. (1998). Generalized hurdle count data regression mo