Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Theoretical and Applied Economics
Reference:

General taxes or insurance premiums: a comparison of funding sources for public health care in OECD countries

Balynin Igor' Viktorovich

PhD in Economics

Associate Professor, Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Finance, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

125468, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky ave., 49

igorbalynin@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Grishin Vladimir Vadimovich

Doctor of Economics

Chief Researcher at the Center for Problems of Organization, Financing and Interterritorial Relations in Health Care, Institute of Regional Economics and Intergovernmental Relations, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

125468, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky ave., 49

VVGrishin@fa.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Ragozin Andrei Vasil'evich

PhD in Medicine

Director of the Center for Problems of Organization, Financing and Interterritorial Relations in Health Care of the Institute of Regional Economics and Interbudgetary Relations, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

125468, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky ave., 49

AVRagozin@fa.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Safonov Aleksandr L'vovich

Doctor of Economics

Professor, Deputy Director of the Institute of Interbudgetary Relations and Regional Economics, Department of Psychology and Human Capital Development, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

125468, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky ave., 49

ALSafonov@fa.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8647.2023.3.43844

EDN:

ZHDTLW

Received:

20-08-2023


Published:

05-10-2023


Abstract: The subject of the study is a comparison of funding sources for public health care in OECD countries. The authors consider in detail the sources of financial support for the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens: transfers from state internal revenues (primarily general taxes: mandatory payments that do not have a target link) and insurance premiums (mandatory payments with a specific target link). The authors grouped the OECD countries depending on the share of sources of financial support for the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens. Particular attention is paid to the advantages and disadvantages of insurance and budgetary financial mechanisms for financial support for the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care. The main conclusions based on the results of the study are as follows: in the modern world, issues of improving the healthcare system as one of the key factors in improving the quality of life of citizens are being actively raised; no matter how actively the budgetary financial mechanism is currently used in the country, its use by public authorities in OECD countries is constantly increasing; the use of the budgetary financial mechanism, despite the existing shortcomings, has a number of advantages compared to the insurance one (primarily, due to the smaller direct impact during periods of reduction in the number of employees and wages, as well as economies of scale in the administration of revenues in the form of general taxes compared to insurance contributions). The results obtained can be used in the practical activities of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Government of Russia, the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, as well as public authorities from other countries when modernizing the state policy in the field of healthcare.


Keywords:

health, health financing, OECD, social development, social sphere, health financing models, insurance financial mechanism, budget financial mechanism, free medical care, medical care

This article is automatically translated.

Introduction

The relevance of the study of issues related to the financial provision of the healthcare system is due to the fact that the quality of life of the population, including life expectancy, directly depends on it. At the same time, as is known, the amount of financial resources is always a limited amount, which makes it necessary to find ways to use them as efficiently as possible. In this regard, an interesting task is to compare countries depending on the chosen approach to the financial support of the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care.

The purpose of the study is based on a dynamic and comparative analysis of the sources of financial support for the provision of free medical care to citizens in the OECD countries in dynamics for 2000-2020.  to determine the existing trends in the organization of state financial policy on the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens.

The development of the healthcare system is an active focus of Russian and foreign researchers. In particular, the issues of improving the financial support of the healthcare systems of Kazakhstan [5], Brazil [10], China [4,12] and France [11] are being actively considered. Russian scientific thought is particularly focused on improving the efficiency of expenditures of the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation on healthcare [1], ensuring social equality [7], development in the context of a pandemic [2,8] and the post-pandemic period [6].

 

Research methodology. The methodology was based on the classification of health financing programs used by the System of National Health Accounts in the 2011 edition, hereinafter referred to as the NHS 2011 (System of Health Accounts 2011 r.: revised edition. Abbreviated version of the World Health Organization, 2022). As part of the study, data from the national health accounts concerning the HF scheme was analyzed.1 – state and mandatory health financing schemes, which include the HF.1.1 scheme (schemes of the central government and schemes of regional/local governments) and the F.1.2 scheme (scheme of compulsory health insurance).

Accordingly, the income of the mandatory/state FS scheme was considered from the sources of income.1 (transfers from state internal revenue, financed mainly by general taxes) and FS.3 (mandatory social insurance contributions from economic entities).

During the study, methods of analysis, synthesis and grouping of data were used in order to form reasonable conclusions.

 

Research results

The analysis of the ratio of various sources of financing of public health care HF.1 showed that there are two key sources within the framework of state financing: either through general taxes or through the collection of special insurance premiums that have a special purpose.

Moreover, depending on the degree of predominance of the practical use of budgetary or insurance financial mechanisms for the organization of medical care, the OECD countries were divided into 3 groups.

Thus, the first group includes countries with preferential financial support for the execution of medical guarantees through insurance premiums withheld from economic entities (conditionally: countries with insurance financing of medical guarantees).

In turn, the second group included countries with preferential financial support for the execution of medical guarantees by schemes of central and/or regional governments through the use of a budgetary financial mechanism: so-called "general taxes" (conditionally: countries with budgetary financing of medical guarantees).

Finally, the third group included countries with parity financial support for the execution of medical guarantees, i.e. comparable shares of funds generated through budgetary and insurance financial mechanisms (conditionally: countries with budgetary and insurance financing of medical guarantees).

Table 1 presents the results of the analysis of data on the share of sources in state schemes of financial support for the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care. So, we clearly see that despite the fact that insurance is declared as the main financial mechanism in these countries, the share of insurance premiums in the volume of financial support for the provision of medical care to citizens is decreasing. So, in particular, in Estonia for 15 years the decrease was almost 11% (from 80.6% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2020), and in Germany for 20 years the decrease exceeds 13% (from 86.9% in 2000 to 73.7% in 2020). Moreover, in 2021 (note: for 2021-2022, the information in the database is given only for some countries), this trend continued to intensify: up to 58.5% in Estonia and up to 72.1% in Germany.  This suggests that the possibility of solving problems in the healthcare sector through an insurance financial mechanism is decreasing.

Table 1 – Shares of insurance premiums and total taxes in mandatory/state financing schemes in countries with insurance financing of medical guarantees, %

Country/Year

A tool for organizing the formation of funds for financial support

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Estonia

 

contributions

-

80,6

79,6

79,7

69,9

general taxes

-

18,3

17,6

19,9

30,0

Republic of Korea

contributions

60,8

61,9

66,1

66,2

66,0

general taxes

32,0

34,2

31,3

31,2

31,5

Netherlands

 

contributions

79,1

70,3

53,5

52,2

46,1

general taxes

20,7

29,5

28,6

29,0

34,9

Germany

contributions

86,9

83,8

72,1

75,5

73,7

general taxes

12,2

15,6

18,3

15,5

18,2

Greece

 

contributions

-

61,1

56,3

51,7

54,4

general taxes

 

38,9

43,7

48,3

45,6

Israel

contributions

-

-

57,4

60,4

69,4

general taxes

-

-

26,778

25,1

21,7

Slovenia

contributions

-

-

-

66,2

60,6

general taxes

-

-

-

7,1

16,2

Slovakia

contributions

-

-

-

-

72,4

general taxes

-

-

-

-

27,6

Poland

contributions

-

-

86,2

86,4

86,4

general taxes

-

-

13,8

13,6

13,6

Lithuania

contributions

-

-

-

58,2

57,0

general taxes

 

 

 

40,2

40,9

Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of the OECD.Stat [13]

 

Table 2 shows countries with exclusively/predominantly budgetary financing of medical guarantees. We can clearly see that in those countries where insurance premiums were present in a small proportion among the sources, it decreased. For example, in Belgium by 7%: from 38.8% to 31.8%. Accordingly, we conclude that countries using the Beveridge model of financing medical guarantees do not seek to switch to insurance.

 

Table 2 – Countries with budgetary financing of medical guarantees – shares of insurance premiums and general taxes in mandatory/state financing schemes, %

Country/Year

A tool for organizing the formation of funds for financial support

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Finland

contributions

15,5

10,9

10,4

10,3

7,6

general taxes

83,3

87,9

88,1

88,3

91,9

Sweden

contributions

0

0

0

0

0

general taxes

100

100

100

100

100

Irish

contributions

-

-

-

0,4

0,7

general taxes

-

-

-

99,6

99,3

Iceland

contributions

-

-

-

0

0

general taxes

-

-

-

100

100

Italy

contributions

-

-

-

0,3

0,2

general taxes

-

-

-

99,7

99,8

Spain

contributions

-

-

-

3,9

3,0

general taxes

-

-

-

96,1

97,0

Portugal

contributions

 

 

 

 

3,5

general taxes

 

 

 

 

96,5

Canada

contributions

-

-

2,0

2,0

1,7

general taxes

-

-

98,0

98,0

98,3

Latvia

contributions

-

-

-

-

0

general taxes

-

-

-

-

99,7

Australia

contributions

-

-

-

0

-

general taxes

-

-

-

98,6

-

New Zealand

contributions

8,6

9,0

-

-

-

general taxes

81,2

79,0

-

-

-

Great Britain

contributions

0

0

0

0

0

general taxes

99,8

99,8

99,8

99,8

99,9

Denmark

contributions

-

-

0

0

0

general taxes

-

-

100

100

100

Belgium

contributions

-

38,8

37,8

36,4

31,8

general taxes

-

48,1

50,3

52,4

59,8

Norway

contributions

-

-

-

-

12,0

general taxes

-

-

-

-

87,9

Switzerland

contributions

3,5

3,6

3,0

2,1

2,5

general taxes

45,6

45,7

47,4

46,0

48,7

USA

 

contributions

33,2

28,2

23,5

14,4

13,3

general taxes

66,8

71,8

76,6

47,5

53,6

France*

CSG tax*

 74,9

75,3

74,6

-

-

general taxes

5,0

4,9

5,0

-

-

Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of the OECD.Stat [13]

Note. * – The national health accounts of France attribute the receipts of the main source of funds - the CSG (contribution sociale g?n?ralis?e) tax to social insurance contributions. Meanwhile, CSG is not a contribution, but a target part of income tax, which is withheld from the total income of all citizens. Therefore, the authors consider France to be a country with almost 100% budgetary financing of state medical guarantees.

 

Table 3 shows data for those countries that belong to the group with approximately equal funding for the implementation of medical guarantees.

 

Table 3 – Shares of insurance premiums and total taxes in mandatory/state financing schemes in countries with parity financing of medical guarantees, %

Country/Year

A tool for organizing the formation of funds for financial support

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Japan

contributions

-

-

-

49,7

-

general taxes

-

-

-

50,3

-

Czech

contributions

-

-

-

65,7

58,2

general taxes

-

-

-

33,9

41,5

Luxembourg

contributions

-

-

-

57,0

55,4

general taxes

-

-

-

42,9

44,5

Austria

contributions

-

-

-

-

48,2

general taxes

-

-

-

-

51,8

Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of the OECD.Stat [13]

Firstly, it should be noted that there are few countries in Group 3 (and in fact, this is partly even due to the transition of countries from the group with preferential financial support through the use of an insurance financial mechanism to a group with a parity use of budgetary and insurance financial mechanisms). Secondly, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that in these countries the share of insurance premiums also decreases in the period under review. For example, in the Czech Republic in 2015-2020, the reduction was 7.5% (from 65.7% to 58.2%), and in Luxembourg - 1.6% (from 57% to 55.4%). Thirdly, it should also be noted that according to the existing fragmentary data for 2021-2022, this trend continues to intensify: for example, in Luxembourg, the share of total taxes has increased to 46%.

Discussion of the results obtained.

The analysis of the obtained results allows us to conclude that there is a trend towards an increase in the share of total taxes and a reduction in insurance premiums in mandatory/state schemes for financing medical guarantees in OECD countries. It was also revealed that with financial support for the implementation of the program of state guarantees of free medical care, the share of developed OECD countries using a budgetary financial mechanism is growing, and the share of OECD countries with an insurance financial mechanism is falling.

In our opinion, this trend is due to several reasons. Firstly, the coronavirus pandemic, in which it became obvious that the use of an insurance financial mechanism is associated with the risk of insufficient funds in case of mass morbidity of the population, especially severe diseases. Secondly, if only income is the object of taxation for insurance premiums, then the use of a budgetary financial mechanism allows using a wider list of objects of taxation (including property). Moreover, this has a serious negative impact during periods of rising unemployment, since the number of employed is decreasing, thereby, the base subject to insurance premiums is also decreasing. Accordingly, the amount of financial resources that could be directed to the financial provision of free medical care is also decreasing. At the same time, an increase in the unemployment rate will also lead to an increase in the demand for public health institutions (due to the lack of an objective opportunity for citizens to finance these services from their savings or buy insurance products). Thirdly, there is a smaller amount of administrative costs for tax collection than for insurance premiums (it is associated with a wide list of taxation objects other than wages, which payers tend to hide, and with economies of scale). Moreover, the use of turnover taxes makes it possible to neutralize the negative aspects of salary-linked insurance premiums from economic entities.

It should also be noted that in the case of voluntary insurance contributions, a number of citizens/employers may refuse to pay them in order to maximize the amount of financial resources allocated in other areas. In the case of mandatory payments, the system avoids many of the problems typical of voluntary insurance markets.

At the same time, it is important to note that the budget financing of the implementation of state guarantees for the provision of free medical care to citizens has shortcomings and vulnerabilities. Tax-based systems can benefit from economies of scale in administration, risk management, and purchasing power. These advantages are due to the collective and political nature of the collection and distribution of tax revenues in a modern nation-State.

Nevertheless, the weaknesses of healthcare financing systems based on general taxation stem from political and economic features. For example, an important aspect of financing health services through general taxation is that management decisions on the use of these funds correlate with political processes. Hence the risk of compromise or, conversely, authoritarian decisions in choosing priorities between healthcare and, for example, roads. Therefore, unlike social insurance – whose resources are targeted, resistant to political conjuncture – tax systems are highly vulnerable to the political factor. If social insurance, as a rule, tends to equalize the population's access to medical care, then tax systems often suffer from the redistribution of resources in favor of medical systems serving privileged groups of the population, as well as problems associated with weak accountability and instability [9].    

Thus, in conclusion, we note that the trend in the development of medical guarantee financing systems in the OECD countries is a decrease in the role of insurance premiums, depending on the amount of wage payments, with an increase in the value of budget financing (a significant share of which is occupied by so–called general taxes). It seems that this experience can be used by public authorities when modernizing the Russian healthcare system in the context of modern socio-economic challenges in the context of ensuring the achievement of the national development goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030.

 

Source of funding.

The article is based on the results of research carried out at the expense of budgetary funds under the state assignment of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

References
1. Astapov, K.L. Astapov, R.A., Musaev, A.A., & Malakhov, A.A. (2020). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the budget spending policy . Financial journal, 12(6), 9-24. doi:10.31107/2075-1990-2020-6-9-24
2. Gabueva, L. A. (2021). Russian and foreign practice of effective healthcare management in a pandemic. Management in Russia and abroad, 5, 20-27.
3. Kosherbaeva, L. (2021). Study of tools for measuring the effectiveness of the health care system. Science and Health, 23(4), 88-97. doi:10.34689/SH.2021.23.4.009
4. Moldovan, A. A. (2023). Features of the health care system of China. E-Scio, 5, 558-567.
5. Omirbayeva, B. S. (2023). Analysis of the productivity indicators of the healthcare system of the Republic of Kazakhstan based on data from national health accounts. The Scientific Heritage, 108, 12-21. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7704147
6. Pesennikova, E. V. (2020). Directions of development of medicine and health care in the post-pandemic world. Modern problems of health care and medical statistics, 4, 535-551. doi:10.24411/2312-2935-2020-00130
7. Pipiya, L. K. (2020). Assessment of inequality in the field of healthcare. Science abroad, 87, 1-53. doi: 10.37437/2222517X-2020-87-2-1-53
8. Plotichkina, N. V. (2021). Public policy of managing the COVID-19 infodemic. Society: politics, economics, law, 2(91), 12-16. doi:10.24158/pep.2021.2.1
9. Birdsall, N., & Hecht, R. (1995). Swimming Against the Tide: Strategies for Improving Equity in Health. Public Economics: National Government Expenditures & Related Policies eJournal. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Swimming-Against-the-Tide%3A-Strategies-for-Improving-Birdsall-Hecht/54fba463ec6d9c57523ff661c4fc2bfaca7c987a
10. Bigoni, A. (2022). Brazil's health system functionality amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of resilience. The Lancet Regional Health–Americas. v. 10.
11. Cordilha, A. C. (2023). Public health systems in the age of financialization: lessons from the French case. Review of social Economy, 81(2), 246-273.
12. Husain, L., Bloom, G., & Xiao, Y. (2023). Building policy capacity for managing rapid, complex change in China’s health system. Policy and Society, 42(1), 28-48.
13. OECD Statistics. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The subject of the study is the relationships that arise in the process of financing public health care in OECD countries. The research methodology used by the author is based on the following methods of scientific cognition: comparison, analysis, synthesis of theoretical material. Relevance. The topic proposed by the author seems to be very relevant. First of all, this is due to the need to study the existing experience of other states in financing healthcare, in order to possibly apply the best practices in our country. Scientific novelty. The scientific component of the study is to generalize the existing practice of public financing of public health care, as well as the classification of OECD countries according to the criteria highlighted in the study into three groups. The authors define the practical significance of the study as the possibility of using the results "by public authorities in modernizing the Russian healthcare system in the context of modern socio-economic challenges in the context of ensuring the achievement of national development goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030." Style, structure, content. The style of the article is scientific and meets the requirements of the journal. The article highlights the structural sections. The authors classify OECD countries at a good theoretical level, depending on the degree of predominance of the practical use of budgetary or insurance financial mechanisms for the organization of medical care. Special attention should be paid to the analysis of the share of insurance premiums and general taxes in mandatory/state financing schemes. The conclusions drawn by the authors are justified. The purpose of the study has been achieved. As comments and recommendations, I would like to note the following. In tables 1-3, the name of the first column ("country/year") should be replaced, since the next column is a "tool for organizing the formation of funds for financial security", and the year should be added either after each name (2000), or by combining the cells of the same name in the table. The article would only benefit if the authors revealed which systems of financing public health care exist in the world, would give their classification and highlight those that are typical for OECD countries Bibliography. The analysis of the bibliography allows us to conclude that the authors have studied scientific works on the subject under study. There are a small number of foreign sources, including official statistics. In general, the list of references consists of 13 sources. Appeal to opponents. The article lacks a critical assessment of scientists' research on similar issues. The authors give only a list of the issues disclosed in such works. The revision of this section of the article would allow the authors to significantly expand the bibliography. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The presented material may open up new perspectives for further research. It will be of interest to those who study the problems of financing public health care. The article meets the requirements of the journal "Theoretical and Applied Economics" for this kind of work, and is recommended for publication taking into account the comments of the reviewer.