FINANCIAL PROTECTION IN HEALTH
At the time of our original observations, the conventional paradigm of catastrophic spending was based on two primary metrics, catastrophic and impoverished spending. Both methods measure percentage of out-of-pocket health spending in households’ overall spending, differing in how medical spending is deemed problematic: catastrophic spending is above a threshold percentage, impoverishing spending pushes a household below the poverty line.
We conducted a study focused on revisions of these metrics as well as studies focused on important factors excluded by conventional metrics, such as cost barriers to access, measures of illness vulnerability and
degrees of coverage like under-insurance.
However, we were not satisfied with these revisions or ad hoc studies because conventional methodologies, too narrow and unidimensional to fully capture the breadth of health costs or the detrimental financial consequences of health needs, remained fundamentally unsound. Conventional approaches underestimate the adverse effects of insufficient financial protection and misinform policy prescriptions.
Thus, we developed a broader, multidimensional framework for financial protection in health, grounded in theoretical foundations. Our observations spawned development of comprehensive household surveys and a line of empirical studies. This work is found in the Philippine Institute for Development Studies and French National Research Institute for Social Development and Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences.
