Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Health microinsurance (HMI) has been used around the globe since the early 1990s for financial risk protection against health shocks in poverty-stricken rural populations in low-income countries. However, there is much debate in the literature on its impact on financial risk protection. There is also no clear answer to the critical policy question about whether HMI is a viable route to provide healthcare to the people of the informal economy, especially in the rural areas. Findings show that HMI schemes are concentrated widely in the low-income countries, especially in South Asia (about 43%) and East Africa (about 25.4%). India accounts for 30% of HMI schemes. Bangladesh and Kenya also possess a good number of schemes. There is some evidence that HMI increases access to healthcare or utilization of healthcare. One set of the literature shows that HMI provides financial protection against the costs of illness to its enrollees by reducing out-of-pocket payments and/or catastrophic spending. On the contrary, a large body of literature with strong methodological rigor shows that HMI fails to provide financial protection against health shocks to its clients. Some of the studies in the latter group rather find that HMI contributes to the decline of financial risk protection. These findings seem to be logical as there is a high copayment and a lack of continuum of care in most cases. The findings also show that scale and dependence on subsidy are the major concerns. Low enrollment and low renewal are common concerns of the voluntary HMI schemes in South Asian countries. In addition, the declining trend of donor subsidies makes the HMI schemes supported by external donors more vulnerable. These challenges and constraints restrict the scale and profitability of HMI initiatives, especially those that are voluntary. Consequently, the existing organizations may cease HMI activities. Overall, although HMI can increase access to healthcare, it fails to provide financial risk protection against health shocks. The existing HMI practices in South Asia, especially in the HMIs owned by nongovernmental organizations and microfinance institutions, are not a viable route to provide healthcare to the rural population of the informal economy. However, HMI schemes may play some supportive role in implementation of a nationalized scheme, if there is one. There is also concern about the institutional viability of the HMI organizations (e.g., ownership and management efficiency). Future research may address this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".