MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984472928 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.034

No UHC without medicines: out-of-pocket payments for non-communicable diseases in 18 countries

2019· article· en· W2984472928 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrianna Murphy, Benjamin Palafox, Sumathy Rangarajan, Salim Yusuf, Martin McKee

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthTanzaniaMedicineHealth careDisease burdenSocioeconomicsBusinessEconomic growthGeographyPopulationEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In 2014 the United Nations agreed on a goal to reduce premature mortality from NCDs by improving financial risk protection. We are far from achieving this: households with NCDs are at an increased risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment, particularly in lower middle- and low-income countries. There is a need to better understand the drivers of health spending among households with NCDs, to inform interventions aimed at achieving universal health coverage. Methods Using data from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology Study, we analyse out-of-pocket expenditure (OOP) among households with NCDs (cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory disease or kidney disease) in 18 countries: Canada, Sweden, Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa, Turkey, China, the Philippines, Colombia, Iran, the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Results The leading driver of OOP on health care in almost all countries included is medicine. For example, the monthly OOP on medicines among NCD households in Iran, where roughly 18% of NCD households experience catastrophic spending, is USD 13.50, representing 36% of OOP on health. In Brazil this figure is USD 25.85, representing 46% of OOP on health. A large proportion of OOP is also made up by consultation fees, particularly in Sub-Saharan African countries. In Poland, 63% of OOP on health is spent on alternative medicine consultation fees. Conclusions Our findings echo the message shared by the Director General of the World Health Organization in 2018, that there is “no Universal Health Coverage without access to quality medicines”. Medicine costs impose a significant economic burden on NCD households in countries at all levels of development, highlighting the need to include essential medicines for NCDs in universal health coverage benefit packages. Key messages To achieve the goal of improved financial risk protection for NCDs we need to understand drivers of out-of-pocket spending among households with NCDs. Medicines are by far the largest driver of OOP in countries at all levels of development and require urgent attention to ensure universal health coverage.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→