ArticleBMJ global health2021
Improving equity in the distribution and financing of health services in Mauritius, a small island state with deeply rooted welfare state standards.
Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Equity in health financing in China: a national financing and benefit incidence analysis, 2013-2023.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- The universal health coverage crossroads for Mauritius, a small island developing state: progress, paradox, and the path forward.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health financing and systems in African small and island states: Unique challenges and opportunities in achieving universal health coverage.SSM - health systems · 2025Article
- [Determinants of health service utilization in the Republic of Congo: case of households in the Moungali Health District].The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Does an innovative case-based payment scheme promote the hierarchical medical system? A tripartite evolutionary game analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Inequalities in Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure Measured Using Financing Incidence Analysis (FIA): A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Towards the Future of Public Health: Roadmapping Trends and Scenarios in the Post-COVID Healthcare Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An assessment of the performance of the national health research system in Mauritius.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Spatio-Temporal Disparity and Driving Forces of the Supply Level of Healthcare Service in the Yangtze River Delta.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring benefits of free healthcare services are accessible to those in need is essential to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Mauritius has sustained a welfare state over four decades with free health services in all public facilities. However, paradoxically, the national UHC service coverage index stood at only 63 in 2017. An assessment of who benefits from health interventions is, therefore, vital to shape future health financing strategies.
methodsThe study applied benefit incidence analysis (BIA) to understand the distribution of healthcare utilisation and spending in comparison to income distribution. Also, a financial incidence analysis (FIA) was conducted to assess the progressivity of the health financing systems. Data from the national survey on household out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure for health were used for the purpose of BIA and FIA. Concentration curves and concentration indices (CI) were nationally estimated and disaggregated to rural/urban levels. Kakwani index (KI) was calculated to assess the progressivity of private healthcare financing.
resultsThe CI for outpatient, inpatient and day care within the public health sector is estimated at -0.33, -0.14 and -0.14, respectively. Overall, CI in the public sector is -0.26. Benefit distribution in the private sector is pro-rich with CI of 0.27. Healthcare financing is regressive as demonstrated by a KI of -0.004, with the poorest population groups contributing a large share, in terms of taxes and OOP, to finance the health system.
conclusionThe BIA posits that government spending on public healthcare has resulted in significant pro-poor services distribution. This is largely offset by pro-rich distribution in the private sector. Thus, implying health financing strategies must be reviewed to promote financial protection against catastrophic health payments and bolster efforts to improve UHC service coverage index and achieve UHC Target 3.8 under Sustainable Development Goal 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.