Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:53:00.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness to pay for improved public health care services in Saudi Arabia: a contingent valuation study among heads of Saudi households

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

Mohammed K. Al-Hanawi ,
Omar Alsharqi  and
Kirit Vaidya
Mohammed K. Al-Hanawi*
Affiliation:
Health Services and Hospitals Administration Department, Faculty of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Omar Alsharqi
Affiliation:
Health Services and Hospitals Administration Department, Faculty of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Kirit Vaidya
Affiliation:
Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Mohammed K. Al-Hanawi, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Health Services and Hospitals Administration, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21441, Saudi Arabia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bulk of health care service provision in Saudi Arabia is undertaken by the public health care sector through the Ministry of Health, which is funded annually by the total government budget, which, in turn, is derived primarily from oil revenue. Public health care services in Saudi Arabia are characterised by an overload, overuse, and shortage of medical personnel, which can result in dissatisfaction with the quality of the current public health care services. This study uses a contingent valuation method to investigate the willingness of Saudi people to pay for improvements to the quality of public health care services. This study also determines the association between the willingness to pay for quality improvements and respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. A pre-tested interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 1187 heads of household in Jeddah Province over a five-month period. Multi-stage sampling was employed to recruit participants. Partial Tobit regression and corresponding marginal effects analyses were used to analyse the data. These empirical analyses show that the majority of the sample was willing to pay for quality improvements in the public health care services. The results of this study might be of use to policymakers to help with both priority setting and fund allocation.

Keywords

healthcare financecontingent valuationpublic preferenceswillingness to payhealth insurance
Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 72 - 93
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albejaidi, FM (2010) Healthcare system in Saudi Arabia: an analysis of structure, total quality management and future challenges. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences 2(2): 794–818.Google Scholar
Al-Hamdan, N, Kutbi, A, Choudhry, A, Nooh, R, Shoukri, M and Mujib, S (2005) WHO Stepwise Approach to NCD Surveillance Country-Specific Standard Report Saudi Arabia, WHO Stepwise Approach. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
Al-Hanawi, MK, Alsharqi, O, Almazrou, S and Vaidya, K (2018) Healthcare finance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a qualitative study of householders’ attitudes. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 16(1): 55–64.Google Scholar
Almalki, M, FitzGerald, G and Clark, M (2011) Health care system in Saudi Arabia: an overview. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 17(10): 784–793.Google Scholar
Al Salloum, NA, Cooper, M and Glew, S (2015) The development of primary care in Saudi Arabia. InnovAiT: Education and Inspiration for General Practice 8: 316–318.Google Scholar
Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P, Leamer, E, Radner, R and Schuman, H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
Awunyo-Vitor, D, Ishak, S and Seidu Jasaw, G (2013) Urban households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste disposal services in Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Urban Studies Research 2013: 1–8.Google Scholar
Baranowski, J (2009) Health systems of the world: Saudi Arabia. Global Health 2: 1–8.Google Scholar
Bateman, IJ, Carson, RT, Day, B, Hanemann, M, Hanley, N, Hett, T, Jones-Lee, M, Loomes, G, Mourato, S and Özdemiroglu, E (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A MANUAL. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R, Akter, S, Brander, L and Haque, E (2009) Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environment and Development Economics 14(3): 397–417.Google Scholar
Carson, R (2012) Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Cavana, RY, Delahaye, BL and Sekaran, U (2001) Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia.Google Scholar
Diener, A, O’Brien, B and Gafni, A (1998) Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7(4): 313–326.Google Scholar
Donaldson, C, Jones, AM, Mapp, TJ and Olson, JA (1998) Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Applied Economics 30(5): 667–677.Google Scholar
Ekstrand, C and Carpenter, TE (1998) Using a Tobit regression model to analyse risk factors for foot-pad dermatitis in commercially grown broilers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 37(1): 219–228.Google Scholar
Fetters, L and Tilson, J (2012) Evidence Based Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.Google Scholar
Gafni, A (1991) Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision-making about health care programs. Medical Care 29(12): 1246–1252.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, M and Hamraz, S (2009) A survey on factors affecting on consumer’s potential willingness to pay for organic products in Iran (a case study). Trends in Agricultural Economics 2(1): 10–16.Google Scholar
Greene, WH (2003) Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hanley, N, MacMillan, D, Wright, RE, Bullock, C, Simpson, I, Parsisson, D and Crabtree, B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Jannadi, B, Alshammari, H, Khan, A and Hussain, R (2008) Current structure and future challenges for the healthcare system in Saudi Arabia. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management 3, 43–50.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, MW, Hammerton, M and Philips, PR (1985) The value of safety: results of a national sample survey. The Economic Journal 95(377): 49–72.Google Scholar
Kathiravan, G and Thirunavukkarasu, M (2013) Quality improvements in public livestock services delivery: are farmers ready to pay? An inquiry in South India. Journal of Buffalo Science 2: 56–62.Google Scholar
Kathiravan, G, Thirunavukkarasu, M and Selvam, S (2012) Are farmers willing to pay for quality improvements in livestock services delivery? Evidence from South India. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 82: 634.Google Scholar
Klose, T (1999) The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47(2): 97–123.Google Scholar
Lienhoop, N and MacMillan, D (2007) Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24(1): 289–295.Google Scholar
Manning, WG (1998) The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem. Journal of Health Economics 17(3): 283–295.Google Scholar
Mataria, A, Donaldson, C, Luchini, S and Moatti, JP (2004) A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications. Journal of Health Economics 23(6): 1285–1311.Google Scholar
McDonald, JF and Moffitt, RA (1980) The uses of Tobit analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics 62(2): 318–321.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D and Ataguba, JE (2011) How to do (or not to do)… a benefit incidence analysis. Health Policy and Planning 26(2): 174–182.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (MOH) (2010) Ministry of Health (2010–2020) Strategic Plan 1431–1440. Riyadh: MOH.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (MOH) (2016) MOH Statistics Book. http://www.moh.gov.sa/en/Ministry/Statistics/book/Pages/default.aspx [17 February 2018].Google Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Mufti, MH (2000) Healthcare Development Strategies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Neumann, PJ, Cohen, JT, Hammitt, JK, Concannon, TW, Auerbach, HR, Fang, C and Kent, DM (2012) Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Economics 21(3): 238–251.Google Scholar
O’Brien, B and Gafni, A (1996) When do the “dollars” make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Medical Decision Making 16(3): 288–299.Google Scholar
Olsen, JA and Smith, RD (2001) Theory versus practice: a review of “willingness‐to‐pay” in health and health care. Health Economics 10(1): 39–52.Google Scholar
Pavel, MS, Chakrabarty, S and Gow, J (2015) Assessing willingness to pay for health care quality improvements. BMC Health Services Research 15: 43.Google Scholar
Raosoft (2014) ‘Sample size calculator’. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html [22 February 2014].Google Scholar
Ryan, M, Scott, DA, Reeves, C, Bate, A, Van Teijlingen, ER, Russell, EM, Napper, M and Robb, C (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5: 1–186.Google Scholar
Salam, AA, Elsegaey, I, Khraif, R and Al-Mutairi, A (2014) Population distribution and household conditions in Saudi Arabia: reflections from the 2010 Census. SpringerPlus 3(1): 530.Google Scholar
Tobin, J (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 26(1): 24–36.Google Scholar
Venkatachalam, L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(1): 89–124.Google Scholar
Viscusi, WK and Aldy, JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1): 5–76.Google Scholar
Walshe, K and Smith, J (2011) ‘Introduction: The Current and Future Challenges of Healthcare Management’, in Walshe, K. and Smith, J. (eds), Healthcare Management. Buckingham: The Open University Press, 1–10.Google Scholar
Walston, S, Al-Harbi, Y and Al-Omar, B (2008) The changing face of healthcare in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi Medicine 28(4): 243–250.Google Scholar
Whitehead, JC, Hoban, TJ and Clifford, WB (1995) Measurement issues with iterated, continuous/interval contingent valuation data. Journal of Environmental Management 43(2): 129–139.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2006) Country Cooperation Strategy for WHO and Saudi Arabia, 2006–2011. New York: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Al-Hanawi et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Al-Hanawi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 62.3 KB