Are user charges efficiency‐ and equity‐enhancing? A critical review of economic literature with particular reference to experience from developing countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract User charges have come to play a significant role in the financing and delivery of publicly provided health services in many developing countries. As a response to health care financing crises, user charges are often promoted as a way of rationalizing the use of care, raising revenue, and improving the coverage and quality of services. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of the main arguments for the efficiency‐ and equity‐enhancing potential of user charges. The extent and scope of welfare gains from user charges are found to be very limited in practice. Using a less restrictive theoretical choice model and estimation technique, the most recent demand studies' findings indicate that household's utilization of health services are more responsive to changes in price and income than was initially reported by the early demand studies. Response to price changes are also found to be greater among the poor than the rich. These findings, combined with modest retained fee revenues and the failure of exemption mechanisms to protect the poor tend to cast doubt on the net benefits of user charges policy, particularly in the area of equity. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it