The Influence of Family Socioeconomic Status in The Health Financing Method Model for Vulnerable Groups in Batanghari Regency

Authors

  • Dwi Noerjoedianto Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universitas Jambi
  • Ummi Kalsum Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universitas Jambi
  • M Ridwan Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universitas Jambi
  • Rd Halim Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universitas Jambi
  • Andi Subandi Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universitas Jambi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22437/jkmj.v9i1.43414

Keywords:

Socioeconomic status, Health financing method, Purchasing ability

Abstract

Following the enactment of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, which stipulates that nominal amounts do not determine the allocation of health financing, provincial and district governments are have been striving to implement teh law based on regional priority scales. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends six patterns and seven health financing mechanisms, which have been variably adopted across regions, including in Jambi Province. The study aims to examine the influence of family socioeconomic status on the selection of health financing models among vulnerable population group. A quantitative approach with a cross-sectional design was employed, involving 271 households as the sample. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. The finding indicate that socioeconomic status has a positive influence (0.945) on the ability to afford healthcare services. This means that for every one-unit increase in socioeconomic status, the likelihood of being able to purchase healthcare increases by 0.945 times. The predictive model for the choice of health financing mechanisms reveals a preference for per package payments, Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), monthly salaries, and fee-for-service models. Conversely, global budgets, capitation, and pre-payment reimbursement schemes were the least preferred. These finding inderscore the importance of socioeconomics factors in determining access to and preferences for health financing mechanisms, particularly among vulnerable groups.

Downloads

References

1. Agha L, Frandsen B, Rebitzer JB. The Perils of P4P: Pay-for-Performance in Healthcare and its Unintended Consequences. J Health Econ. 2019;68.

2. Adisasmito W, Setiawan E, Kusuma D. Evaluation of Capitation-Based Payment System in Indonesia’s National Health Insurance Program (JKN). Public Health Rev. 2019;40:1–15.

3. Husnah S, Adiyanto A, Syahrial S. Barriers to Healthcare Access for Vulnerable Groups in Remote Areas in Indonesia. Journal of Rural Health. 2021;37(4):723–32.

4. Pablo Gottret, George Schieber. Health Financing Revisited: A Practitioner’s Guide. 2006.

5. Kumar S, Preker A, Harding A. Efficiency in Health Service Delivery: Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) and Hospital Payment Systems. Int J Health Econ Manag. 2021;21(2):185–205.

6. Purnell TS, Calhoun EA, Golden SH, Halladay JR, Krok-Schoen JL, Appelhans BM, et al. Achieving Health Equity: Closing The Gaps in Health Care Disparities, Interventions, and Research. Health Aff. 2016;35(8):1410–5.

7. Marmot M, Allen J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J, Michael Marmot by, et al. Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On. Vol. 10. London; 2020.

8. Rashidian A, Jafari N, Omidvari S. Capitation and Global Budget as Alternative Payment Methods in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Glob Health Action. 2020;13(1).

9. Saraswati M, Budiono B. Implementation of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) in Indonesia’s National Health Insurance System. Indonesian Health Policy Journal. 2020;5(3):195–208.

10. Nunes BP, Thumé E, Tomasi E, Duro SMS, Facchini LA. Socioeconomic inequalities in the access to and quality of health care services. Rev Saude Publica. 2014;48(6):968–76.

11. Osypuk TL, Joshi P, Geronimo K, Acevedo-Garcia D. Do Social and Economic Policies Influence Health? A Review. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014 Sep;1(3):149–64.

12. World Health Organization (WHO). Primary Health Care on the Road to Universal Health Coverage: 2019 Global Monitoring Report. Geneva; 2019.

13. World Health Organization, The World Bank. Global Monitoring Report on Financial Protection in Health 2019. Geneva; 2020.

14. Xu K, Soucat A, Kutzin J. Public Financing for Universal Health Coverage: Concepts and Case Studies." World Bank Research Observer. World Bank Research Observer. 2021;36(1):1–22.

15. Tao W, Agerholm J, Burström B. The Impact of Reimbursement Systems on Equity in Access and Quality of Primary Care: A Systematic Literature Review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 4;16(1):1–10.

16. Mehmood A, Ahmed Z, Ghailan K, Dohare S, Varghese J, Azeez FK. Implementation of Healthcare Financing Based on Diagnosis-related Group in Three WHO Regions; Western Pacific, South East Asia and Eastern Mediterranean: A Systematic Review. J Health Manag. 2023 Sep 1;25(3):404–13.

17. Sambodo NP, Bonfrer I, Sparrow R, Pradhan M, van Doorslaer E. Effects of Performance-Based Capitation Payment on The Use of Public Primary Health Care Services in Indonesia. Soc Sci Med. 2023 Jun 1;327.

18. Alshreef A. Provider Payment Mechanisms: Effective Policy Tools for Achieving Universal and Sustainable Healthcare Coverage. In: Universal Health Coverage. IntechOpen; 2019. p. 10.

19. Etemadi M, Hajizadeh M. User Fee Removal for The Poor: A Qualitative Study to Explore Policies for Social Health Assistance in Iran. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 1;22(1).

20. Etiaba EI, Kockaya G, Morton A, Maritim B. Acceptability of Prepayment, Social Solidarity and Cross-Subsidies in National Health Insurance: A Mixed Methods Study in Western Kenya. Front Public Health. 2022;4–6.

Downloads

Published

2025-03-31

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2