IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v241y2019ics0277953619305775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do supply- and demand-side interventions influence equity in healthcare utilisation? Evidence from maternal healthcare in Senegal

Author

Listed:
  • Parmar, Divya
  • Banerjee, Aneesh

Abstract

The launch of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, followed by the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, and the increasing focus on achieving universal health coverage has led to numerous interventions on both supply- and demand-sides of health systems in low- and middle-income countries. While tremendous progress has been achieved, inequities in access to healthcare persist, leading to calls for a closer examination of the equity implications of these interventions. This paper examines the equity implications of two such interventions in the context of maternal healthcare in Senegal. The first intervention on the supply-side focuses on improving the availability of maternal health services while the second intervention, on the demand-side, abolished user fees for facility deliveries. Using three rounds of Demographic Health Surveys covering the period 1992 to 2010 and employing three measures of socioeconomic status (SES) based on household wealth, mothers' education and rural/urban residence – we find that although both interventions increase utilisation of maternal health services, the rich benefit more from the supply-side intervention, thereby increasing inequity, while those living in poverty benefit more from the demand-side intervention i.e. reducing inequity. Both interventions positively influence facility deliveries in rural areas although the increase in facility deliveries after the demand-side intervention is more than the increase after the supply-side intervention. There is no significant difference in utilisation based on mothers’ education. Since people from different SES categories are likely to respond differently to interventions on the supply- and demand-side of the health system, policymakers involved in the design of health programmes should pay closer attention to concerns of inequity and elite capture that may unintentionally result from these interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Parmar, Divya & Banerjee, Aneesh, 2019. "How do supply- and demand-side interventions influence equity in healthcare utilisation? Evidence from maternal healthcare in Senegal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:241:y:2019:i:c:s0277953619305775
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619305775
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Allegri, Manuela & Ridde, Valéry & Louis, Valérie R. & Sarker, Malabika & Tiendrebéogo, Justin & Yé, Maurice & Müller, Olaf & Jahn, Albrecht, 2011. "Determinants of utilisation of maternal care services after the reduction of user fees: A case study from rural Burkina Faso," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 210-218, March.
    2. Zombré, David & De Allegri, Manuela & Ridde, Valéry, 2017. "Immediate and sustained effects of user fee exemption on healthcare utilization among children under five in Burkina Faso: A controlled interrupted time-series analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 27-35.
    3. Klaus Deininger & Paul Mpuga, 2005. "Economic and Welfare Impact of the Abolition of Health User Fees: Evidence from Uganda," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 14(1), pages 55-91, March.
    4. Marion Ravit & Martine Audibert & Valery Ridde & Myriam de Loenzien & Clémence Schantz & Alexandre Dumont, 2018. "Do free caesarean section policies increase inequalities in Benin and Mali?," Post-Print hal-01811304, HAL.
    5. Ravallion, Martin, 2001. "Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1803-1815, November.
    6. V. Ridde & I. Agier & A. Jahn & O. Mueller & J. Tiendrebéogo & M. Yé & M. De Allegri, 2015. "The impact of user fee removal policies on household out-of-pocket spending: evidence against the inverse equity hypothesis from a population based study in Burkina Faso," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(1), pages 55-64, January.
    7. Lund, Jens Friis & Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 2013. "Revisiting the Issue of Elite Capture of Participatory Initiatives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    8. Victora, C.G. & Joseph, G. & Silva, I.C.M. & Maia, F.S. & Vaughan, J.P. & Barros, F.C. & Barros, A.J.D., 2018. "The inverse equity hypothesis: Analyses of institutional deliveries in 286 national surveys," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 108(4), pages 464-471.
    9. McPake, Barbara, 1993. "User charges for health services in developing countries: A review of the economic literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 1397-1405, June.
    10. McKinnon, Britt & Harper, Sam & Kaufman, Jay S., 2015. "Who benefits from removing user fees for facility-based delivery services? Evidence on socioeconomic differences from Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 117-123.
    11. Wagstaff, Adam & Bilger, Marcel & Buisman, Leander R. & Bredenkamp, Caryn, 2014. "Who benefits from government health spending and why? a global assessment," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7044, The World Bank.
    12. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    13. World Health Organization & UNICEF & UNFPA & World Bank Group & United Nations, 2015. "Trends in Maternal Mortality," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 23550.
    14. Mladovsky, Philipa & Ba, Maymouna, 2017. "Removing user fees for health services: A multi-epistemological perspective on access inequities in Senegal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 91-99.
    15. Sam Wong, 2010. "Elite Capture or Capture Elites? Lessons from the 'Counter-elite' and 'Co-opt-elite' Approaches in Bangladesh and Ghana," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2010-082, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Aluísio J D Barros & Cesar G Victora, 2013. "Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Determining and Interpreting Inequalities in Coverage of Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Interventions," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-9, May.
    17. Owen O'Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer & Ravi P. Rannan-Eliya & Aparnaa Somanathan & Shiva Raj Adhikari & Deni Harbianto & Charu C. Garg & Piya Hanvoravongchai & Mohammed N. Huq & Anup Karan & Gabriel M., 2007. "The Incidence of Public Spending on Healthcare: Comparative Evidence from Asia," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 21(1), pages 93-123.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tao, Zhuolin & Cheng, Yang & Du, Shishuai & Feng, Ling & Wang, Shaoshuai, 2020. "Accessibility to delivery care in Hubei Province, China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samb, Oumar Mallé & Ridde, Valery, 2018. "The impact of free healthcare on women's capability: A qualitative study in rural Burkina Faso," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 9-16.
    2. Saguin, Kidjie, 2018. "Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven development: Lessons from participatory budgeting," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 220-232.
    3. Gerald Manthalu, 2019. "User fee exemption and maternal health care utilisation at mission health facilities in Malawi: An application of disequilibrium theory of demand and supply," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 461-474, April.
    4. Cagé, Julia, 2009. "Growth, Poverty Reduction and Governance in Developing Countries: a Survey," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 0904, CEPREMAP.
    5. Mladovsky, Philipa & Ba, Maymouna, 2017. "Removing user fees for health services: A multi-epistemological perspective on access inequities in Senegal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 91-99.
    6. Chitalu M. Chama-Chiliba & Steven F. Koch, 2014. "Assessing Regional Variations in the Effect of the Removal of User Fees on Institutional Deliveries in Rural Zambia," Working Papers 201417, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    7. Whaley, Luke & Cleaver, Frances & Mwathunga, Evance, 2021. "Flesh and bones: Working with the grain to improve community management of water," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Ahmed Shoukry Rashad & Mesbah Fathy Sharaf, 2015. "Who Benefits from Public Healthcare Subsidies in Egypt?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    10. Aidan Craney, 2020. "Local Participation or Elite Capture in Sheep’s Clothing? A Conundrum of Locally Led Development," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 191-200.
    11. Jusrut, Poonam, 2022. "Localization of elite capture in wood charcoal production and trade: Implications for development outcomes of a forest management program in rural Senegal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Renard, Yohan, 2022. "From fees to free: User fee removal, maternal health care utilization and child health in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Mussa, Richard, 2014. "Food Price Heterogeneity and Income Inequality in Malawi: Is Inequality Underestimated?," MPRA Paper 56080, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Abel Brodeur, 2012. "Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans," Working Papers halshs-00664269, HAL.
    15. Shun-Yang Lee & Julian Runge & Daniel Yoo & Yakov Bart & Anett Gyurak & J. W. Schneider, 2023. "COVID-19 Demand Shocks Revisited: Did Advertising Technology Help Mitigate Adverse Consequences for Small and Midsize Businesses?," Papers 2307.09035, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    16. Cowling, Marc & Ughetto, Elisa & Lee, Neil, 2018. "The innovation debt penalty: Cost of debt, loan default, and the effects of a public loan guarantee on high-tech firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 166-176.
    17. Kaika, Dimitra & Zervas, Efthimios, 2013. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1403-1411.
    18. Sonja Fagernäs, 2011. "Protection through Proof of Age. Birth Registration and Child Labor in Early 20th Century USA," Working Paper Series 2311, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    19. Hilber, Christian A.L., 2010. "New housing supply and the dilution of social capital," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 419-437, May.
    20. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Popova, Olga, 2024. "Environment vs. Economic Growth: Do Environmental Preferences Translate Into Support for Green Parties?," IZA Discussion Papers 17475, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:241:y:2019:i:c:s0277953619305775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.