包括衡量国家再分配努力的私人医疗保健费用

K. Baird
{"title":"包括衡量国家再分配努力的私人医疗保健费用","authors":"K. Baird","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.40341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because they do not account for the private component of household’s health care expenses, measures of nations’ redistributive effort inconsistently account for the financial burden their health-care system places on different households. We recalculate the effect of government policy on income distribution by adjusting household income not just for taxes and social transfers, but also for private health expenditures. Examining eight LIS datasets, we show the degree of bias in typical measures of post-government income distribution. In Switzerland and the U.S., for instance, post-government poverty rates climb by 3-4 percentage points once households’ private medical expenses are subtracted from income. Future assessments of governments’ redistributive effect should uniformly account for the distributional impact of their health-care financing policies.","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Including Private Health Care Costs in Measuring Nations’ Redistributive Effort\",\"authors\":\"K. Baird\",\"doi\":\"10.25071/1874-6322.40341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Because they do not account for the private component of household’s health care expenses, measures of nations’ redistributive effort inconsistently account for the financial burden their health-care system places on different households. We recalculate the effect of government policy on income distribution by adjusting household income not just for taxes and social transfers, but also for private health expenditures. Examining eight LIS datasets, we show the degree of bias in typical measures of post-government income distribution. In Switzerland and the U.S., for instance, post-government poverty rates climb by 3-4 percentage points once households’ private medical expenses are subtracted from income. Future assessments of governments’ redistributive effect should uniformly account for the distributional impact of their health-care financing policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40341\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Income Distribution®","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于没有考虑到家庭医疗费用的私人部分,衡量国家再分配努力的措施不一致地考虑到其医疗保健系统给不同家庭带来的经济负担。我们通过调整家庭收入来重新计算政府政策对收入分配的影响,不仅包括税收和社会转移,还包括私人医疗支出。通过检查8个LIS数据集,我们显示了后政府收入分配的典型衡量标准的偏差程度。例如,在瑞士和美国,一旦家庭的私人医疗费用从收入中扣除,后政府时期的贫困率就会上升3-4个百分点。今后对政府再分配效果的评估应统一考虑其卫生保健筹资政策的分配影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Including Private Health Care Costs in Measuring Nations’ Redistributive Effort
Because they do not account for the private component of household’s health care expenses, measures of nations’ redistributive effort inconsistently account for the financial burden their health-care system places on different households. We recalculate the effect of government policy on income distribution by adjusting household income not just for taxes and social transfers, but also for private health expenditures. Examining eight LIS datasets, we show the degree of bias in typical measures of post-government income distribution. In Switzerland and the U.S., for instance, post-government poverty rates climb by 3-4 percentage points once households’ private medical expenses are subtracted from income. Future assessments of governments’ redistributive effect should uniformly account for the distributional impact of their health-care financing policies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Axioms and Intuitions about Societal Inequality Does vulnerable employment narrow income inequality? Evidence from developing countries The Impact of Microfinance on Poverty and Income Inequality Return Migration and Earnings Mobility in the Middle East and North Africa The micro-macro gap for capital income in the Eurozone
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1