The Effect of Government Health Expenditure on the Income Distribution: A Comparison of Valuation Methods in Ghana
Jeremy Barofsky and
Stephen D. Younger
Additional contact information
Jeremy Barofsky: Brookings Institution
Stephen D. Younger: Department of Economics, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY
No 66, Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series from Tulane University, Department of Economics
Government spending on services affects the level and distribution of welfare, but measuring its value is a challenge. To assess how publicly funded in-kind health care affects the income distribution, we must estimate its monetary value to beneficiaries. We describe and compare three approaches to measuring the distributional consequences of government health spending: average cost of provision, willingness-to-pay, and health outcomes. In addition, we estimate the value of financial risk protection from insurance, which is a benefit of health spending that can be added to each of the aforementioned approaches. Average cost is the standard method used in benefit-incidence studies (Lustig, 2018). This method values utilization of each unit of care at the government’s average cost of provision, calculated with national accounts data and administrative records. Willingness to pay uses revealed preference to estimate compensating variations for health care subsidies. The health outcomes method estimates the effect of government health spending on mortality and values those mortality reductions in monetary terms. We provide example applications for each of these methods using a national cross-section from Ghana for 2012/13. We estimate a willingness to pay model for outpatient services and find that, on average, users value those services at less than what the government pays for them. The estimated marginal effect of health spending for outpatient care on inequality are modest and somewhat smaller than those for the average cost approach. In contrast, the health outcomes method finds that the marginal effects of health spending for three causes of death and five health interventions are very large. Health interventions to reduce malaria mortality such as indoor residual spraying and distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets are strongly progressive and the averted mortality from providing anti-malarial medication dwarfs the distributional effects of any other public expenditure or tax in Ghana. Adopting the health outcomes approach dramatically changes our assessment of how public spending in Ghana affects the welfare distribution. The benefit of financial risk protection from Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme equals 0.25% to 0.5% of income for the three poorest quartiles and between 0.5% and 1% of income for the wealthiest, yet insurance is still distributed somewhat more equally than income itself.
Keywords: : Health; Economic Inequality; Poverty; Mortality; Ghana; Full Income (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H40 H51 I13 I14 I15 I32 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 48 pages
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Published in Commitment to Equity, June 2019, pages 1-48
Downloads: (external link)
http://repec.tulane.edu/RePEc/ceq/ceq66.pdf First version, 2019 (application/pdf)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:tul:ceqwps:66
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series from Tulane University, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Nora Lustig ().