Variable |
Observation |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
Min |
Max |
WTP (Persons willing to pay) |
348.000 |
0.655 |
0.476 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Trust (Persons who trust in the effectiveness of the CBHIS) |
141.000 |
0.397 |
0.491 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Association Membership (Yes) |
340.000 |
0.615 |
0.487 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Income less than N5,000 |
315.000 |
0.235 |
0.425 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Income N5001-9,999 |
315.000 |
0.200 |
0.401 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Income N10,000-24,000 |
315.000 |
0.257 |
0.438 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Income above N24,000 |
315.000 |
0.308 |
0.462 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Unemployed |
349.000 |
0.258 |
0.438 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Self-employed |
349.000 |
0.593 |
0.492 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Wage employment |
349.000 |
0.149 |
0.357 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Household size less than 2 |
343.000 |
0.120 |
0.325 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Household size 2_5 |
343.000 |
0.542 |
0.499 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Household size 6_9 |
343.000 |
0.321 |
0.467 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Household size 10 and above |
343.000 |
0.017 |
0.131 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Religion Christian |
344.000 |
0.625 |
0.485 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Religion Muslim |
344.000 |
0.375 |
0.485 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Age in years (13-35) |
347.000 |
0.608 |
0.489 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Age in years (36-46) |
347.000 |
0.337 |
0.473 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Age in years (above 46) |
347.000 |
0.055 |
0.228 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
No Formal education |
350.000 |
0.229 |
0.421 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Primary education |
350.000 |
0.149 |
0.356 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Secondary education |
350.000 |
0.234 |
0.424 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Tertiary education |
350.000 |
0.389 |
0.488 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Married Monogamous |
343.000 |
0.560 |
0.497 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Marred Polygamous |
343.000 |
0.254 |
0.436 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Married loose union |
343.000 |
0.044 |
0.205 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Single |
343.000 |
0.143 |
0.350 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Distance less than 100 meters |
252.000 |
0.294 |
0.456 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Distance 101- 400 meters |
252.000 |
0.202 |
0.403 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Distance 401-999 meters |
252.000 |
0.226 |
0.419 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Distance above 1,000 meters |
252.000 |
0.278 |
0.449 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
Source: Author’s computation.
There are more pregnant women (65%) who are WTP for the use of the CBHIS than those who are not. Approximately 40% of the study sample have some trust in the CBHIS scheme and most of them (62%) are members of a thrift society. Individuals who earn above N 24, 000 per month are relatively more in the study sample (31%) compared to other income groups and are mainly engaged in self-employment work type. Most of the women are from households with 2 to 5 persons (54%). Age distribution reflects 13 to 35 years for most persons in the study. Figures for educational distribution reveal that there are more women with no formal education (23%) than those with primary education (15%). Those with secondary and tertiary education are about 23% and 39% respectively. Most respondents in the study are from a monogamous family (56%). Approximately 29% of respondents reside less than 100 meters away from the location of the CBHIS.
Table 2 presents the probit regression estimates of the WTP for use of the CBHIS. As shown in the table, the model consisted of 5 variables that were significantly associated with the WTP for use of the CBHIS. The most determining factor of the WTP for CBHIS was household size. The WTP for use of the scheme dropped with increase in household size. Individuals who are from households with less than two persons had highest WTP with approximately 99% likelihood compared to those from households with 10 and above number of persons.
Table 2: Distribution of Per Capita Health Expenditure by Region by Financing Agents ($)
Variable |
Estimates |
|||
Trust: No trust is the reference category |
||||
Trust (Persons who trust in the effectiveness of the CBHIS scheme) |
-0.03(0.037) |
|||
Association membership: Non membership as reference category |
||||
Association Membership |
-0.004(0.035) |
|||
Income: Above N24,000 is the reference category |
||||
Income less than N5,000 |
0.504(0.254)* |
|||
Income N5000-9,999 |
0.93(0.131)*** |
|||
Income N10,000-24,000 |
0.507(0.333)** |
|||
Employment: Wage employment is the reference category |
||||
Unemployed |
-0.147(0.088)* |
|||
Self-employed |
-0.414(0.213)** |
|||
Household size: Reference category 10 and above number of persons |
||||
Household size less than 2 |
0.99(0.001)*** |
|||
Household size 2_5 |
0.939(0.058)*** |
|||
Household size 6_9 |
0.801(0.186)*** |
|||
Religion: Reference category Islam |
||||
Religion Christian |
-0.006(0.045) |
|||
Age in years: Reference category above 46 years |
||||
Age in years (13-35) |
-0.128(0.123) |
|||
Age in years (36-46) |
-0.078(0.075) |
|||
Education: Reference category Tertiary education |
||||
No Formal education |
-0.065(0.052) |
|||
Primary education |
-0.052(0.033) |
|||
Secondary education |
-0.052(0.034) |
|||
Marital Status: Reference category single |
||||
Married Monogamous |
0.106(0.083)* |
|||
Marred Polygamous |
0.223(0.19)* |
|||
Married loose union |
0.484(0.388)* |
|||
Distance from home to CBHIS :Reference 1,000 meters and above |
||||
Distance less than 100 meters |
-0.129(0.07)* |
|||
Distance 101- 400 meters |
0.05(0.066) |
|||
Distance 401-999 meters |
0.108(0.059) |
|||
Diagnostics |
||||
|
||||
Model specification |
||||
Collinearity test Mean variance inflation factor(Mean VIF)=5.24 |
Source: Author’s computation Notes: 1: Marginal effects of coefficients are reported with standard error values in brackets. 2: *, ** and *** indicate statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively
Income was also a significant determinant of the WTP for use of the CBHIS. Pregnant women receiving income between N5, 000 and N9, 9000 are relatively more likely to pay for use of the CBHIS. Such women have approximately 93% likelihood of paying for the use of the CBHIS compared to those earning above N24, 000. Marital status was also a significant factor influencing the WTP for CBHIS. Women who are married; monogamous, polygamous or loose union are more WTP for use of the CBHIS than single women. Those in a loose union show highest WTP for use of the CBHIS among the various grouping of marital status. They are about 48% more likely to pay for use of the CBHIS relative to those who are single. The employment status of the pregnant woman was also a significant determinant of the WTP for the use of the CBHIS. Women who are in self-employment had relatively highest less likelihood of the WTP. Those in self-employment are about 41% less likely to pay for use of the CBHIS relative to those in wage employment. Unemployed women are about 15% less likely to pay for use of the scheme. Distance from place of residence to the CBHIS also significantly affected the WTP, especially for women who reside very close to the centre. Pregnant women who live less than 100m away from the location of the CBHIS showed approximately 13% less likelihood of paying for use of the scheme. The likelihood test statistics show overall model fit with significant probability values at 5% and the VIF value of 5.24 annuls concerns for the problem of multicollinearity as it is less than the threshold value of 10 [31]. The results for premium amounts pregnant women are WTP for the use of the CBHIS are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Premium amounts WTP for CBHIs
Amounts WTP monthly to benefit from the CBHIS in |
Average (X) |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage |
Total of amounts WTP (FX) |
at the rate of 500 |
500 |
107.00 |
46.93 |
53500 |
600-2000 |
1,300 |
75.00 |
32.89 |
97500 |
2001-3000 |
2,500 |
37.00 |
16.23 |
92500 |
above 3000 |
3,000 |
9.00 |
3.95 |
27000 |
Total |
7,300 |
228 |
100 |
270500 |
Average estimates willing to pay = . With dollar exchange value of N197/ US $ Average amount WTP= US $6.02
Increase in premium rates was accompanied by a decrease in the percentage of women WTP for use of the scheme. Given the premium rates, there are relatively more women (about 47%) WTP N 500. Approximately 33% of the women are WTP between N 600 and N 2,000. About 16% are WTP between N 2001 to N 3,000 and only approximately 3% of the women are WTP above N 3, 000. On the average, premium amounts WTP was N1, 186.40 (US $6.02).
Discussions
The study identified factors that affect the WTP for use of the CBHIS and premium amounts WTP for use of the scheme among pregnant women. Findings on determining factors and premium amounts WTP will provide a platform for planning and effective use of the CBHIS especially among pregnant women.
Summary Statistics of Variables
Table 1 showed that majority of the respondents are WTP for the use of the scheme. This implies that most pregnant women in the study area are willing to use the CBHIS even at the prevailing premium rate. Majority of the respondents are in a thrift society and this could aid their ability to save for use of the scheme. This is corroborated by results for income with most of the women (about 69%) earning N24, 000 and below and are also mainly engaged in self-employment work type. A reasonable proportion of the women are from households within the maximum number of persons required by the CBHIS for a one-time monthly premium payment. About 66% of the women are from households with less than 6 persons. This can also be the reason for their WTP for use of the CBHIS. Age distribution was between 13 to 35 years for most persons in the study. This age group basically comprise the reproductive years of the woman and shows adequate capture of the required sample group. Majority of the women (61%) do not have more than secondary education and this explains their engagement mainly in self-employment. Most of the women in the study sample (about 86%) are married and hence can get some form of reservation income which could encourage use of the scheme. Most women reside above 100 meres away from the location of the CBHIS and yet are WTP for use of the scheme. This implies that challenges with distance does not deter use of the CBHIS in the study area.
Determinants of the WTP for use of the CBHIS
From the probit regression results, variables that significantly influences the WTP for use of the CBHIS include; income, employment status, household size, marital status and distance from respondent’s home to the location of the CBHIS. This corroborates findings by earlier studies in Nigeria and Cameron [7-8, 10]. Results for income suggests that individuals who earn below N 24, 000 are more WTP for the use of the CBHIS than those who earn above this amount. This implies higher patronage of the CBHIS by persons who are low income earners. Given that persons in the low income bracket are more likely to make use of the scheme, efforts should be geared towards introduction of strategies to cut premium charges. Tactic actions such as contributions from the local government to subsidize premium and financial support from civil society groups and philanthropists can alleviate the burden of payment. Results for employment status reveals less WTP for the scheme for women who are unemployed and self-employed relative to persons in wage employment. This is an indication that women who are unemployed have difficulties with raising income for payment. Women in self-employment are likely among the uneducated and hence can undermine benefits of the CBHIS. Efforts to increase the use of the scheme should involve information dissemination of benefits of the CBHIS. There are positive relationships between the WTP and household size with individuals from smaller households shown to have a higher probability for use of the scheme than those from larger households. Individuals from larger households are likely to incur additional charges per visit levied to check demand side moral hazard and this possibly reduces the desire to make use of the scheme. Women who are married whether monogamous, polygamous or loose union, are shown to have a higher WTP relative to single women. This finding draws from possible case of reservation income for women who are married and thus raises tendency to participate in the scheme. Efforts to promote use among single expectant mothers can be achieved through setting low and affordable premium. Results for distance gave shocking findings with evidence that those who reside less than 100 meters away from the CBHIS centre have a lower likelihood of participating in the scheme relative to those who live 1,000 meters away from the centre. Though it is possible that those who live closer to the CBHIS undermine the value and benefits of the center, there is the need to further explore factors that can influence the use of the CBHIS in strata of residential distance from location of the center.
Monthly Premium Amounts WTP for Use of the CBHIS
From the results, the WTP falls with increase in premium charge. Almost half of the women would prefer that premium charge is set at the rate of N 500 per household. On the average, amounts WTP as premium charge N1, 186.40 (US $6.02) was lower than existing charge of N 1, 200 (US $6.09). Efforts to encourage use of the CBHIS should therefore focus on reduction of premium from existing rate.
Conclusion
Results of the study suggest that income, employment status, household size, marital status and distance to the CBHIS significantly determine the WTP for the use of the scheme. Low income earners are more likely to participants in the scheme than those with higher income. Participants in the scheme are mainly those in wage employment. WTP for the use of the scheme has positive relationship with household size but however drops in magnitude with increase in family size. Single women are the most unlikely set to participate in the scheme as well as those who reside less than 100 meters to the location of the CBHIS. On the average monthly premium charges to encourage use of the scheme should not exceed approximate amounts of N 1, 186.40 (US $6.02).
Overall, efforts to boost use of the scheme in rural communities, should be encouraged in rural communities and premium charges should be low for better use of the CBHIS.
One limitation of this study is that it was gender biased. The study did not provide findings for men and not all women were covered. Another limitation encountered during this research was the inability to obtain population values for each of the selected community used for the study. Hence, figures for local government estimates were used.
Contribution of Authors
All authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study. O.A oversaw the data collection, analysis, interpretation of the results and review of manuscript, O.L critically reviewed the manuscript upon subsequent reviewers’ report. O.R. was primarily responsible for the collection of data, analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the draft and approved the final manuscript.
Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
None
Acknowledgement
None.
References:
- Preker A, Carrin G, Dror D, Jakab M, Hsiao W, Arhin-Tenkorang D. Effectiveness of community health financing in meeting the cost of illness. Bull World Health Organization. 2002; 80(2): 143-150.
- Babatunde, O.A, Akande, T.M, Salaudeen, A.G, Aderibigbe, S.A, Elegbede, O.E., Ayodele, L.M. Willingness to pay for CBHIs and its determinants among household heads in rural communities in North-central Nigeria. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities. 201; 2(2): 133-142.
- WHO. The World Health Organization report (2000-2005): Federal republic of Nigeria, health system financing. The path to universal coverage. 2005. Washington D.C.
- Dong H, Kouyode B, Cairns J, Mugisha F, Saverborn R. Willingness to pay for community based health insurance in Burkinafaso. Health Econ. 2003; 12:852-5
- Asgary. A, Willis K, Taghvaei A., Rafeian M. Estimating rural households’ willingness to pay for health insurance. European Journal of health economics. 2004; 85(2): 207-234.
- Onwujekwe O, Velényi EV. Willingness to pay for private voluntary health insurance in south east Nigeria. African journal of health economics. 2012; 0004.
- Hermann P, Ephias M, Pierre-Alexandre M. The economic value of the willingness to pay for community based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. 2011
- Oriakhi H, Onemolease E. Determinants of rural household’s willingness to participate in community based health insurance scheme in Edo State Nigeria. Ethno Med. 2012; 6(2): 95-102
- Adane K. Measho G. Mezgebu Y. Willingness to pay for community based health insurance among households in the rural community of Fogera District, North-west Ethiopia. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences. 2014; 2(4): 263-269.
- Usman BA. Willingness to pay for community based health care financing scheme: a comparative study among rural and urban households in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of dental and medical sciences. 2013; 27-40.
- UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, the United Nations. Child mortality report: levels and trends in estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency group for child mortality estimation. 2013. Available at www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/.../levels_trends_child_mortality_2013/en/. Accessed 20th May, 2015.
- United Nations. World population prospects: the 2012 revision, highlights and advance tables. Population Division, Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, United Nations. New York, NY. 2013; Working Paper: ESA/P/WP228)
- WHO. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013 estimates by WHO, UNFPA, the World Bank and the United Nations Population Division. Geneva, Switzerland. 2014. Available at www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/.../maternal-mortality-2013/en/. Accessed 24th May, 2015.
- United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Trends in estimates of maternal mortality ratio (MMR): maternal deaths per 100 000 live births) between 1990 and 2013, by country. 2014. Available at http://data.unicef.org/maternal-health/maternal-mortality. Accessed on June 3rd 2015.
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes. 1991; 50(2): 179-211.
- Bamberg S, Schmidt P. Incentives, morality or habit? Predicting students'car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior. 2003; 35: 264-285.
- Schwartz SH, Howard JA. Internalized values as moderators of altruism, in E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, and J. Reykowski (Eds). Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior. 1984. New York: Plenum Press. pp 229-255.
- Henk S, Henk AM, Harland WP. Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: question derived from norm-activation theory. Basic and applied social psychology.2007.
- Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics. 1998; 7: 313-326.
- Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999; 47: 97-123.
- Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of “Willingness To Pay in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10: 39-52.
- Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 2003; 12: 609-628.
- Bishop RC, Heberlein TA. Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economic. 1979; 61: 926-930.
- Arrow, K., Robert., Paul R. P., Edward E. L., Roy R., Howard S. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 1993; 58: 4601-4614
- Mathiyazhagan K. Willingness to pay for rural health insurance through community participation in India. International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 1998; 13:47-67
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Social statistics in Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Health Abuja. 2012. Available at www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/download/170. Accessed on 12th June, 2016.
- National Population Commission. Population Distribution by Sex, State, LGA and Senatorial District Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2006 Population and Housing Census Priority Table, Volume III. 2010.
- World population Review. Lagos Population. 2017. Available at http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/lagos-population/
- Cochran WG. Sampling technique. Third edition. 1977. John Wiley and Sons, New York
- Farris YS. Estimating appropriate sample size for research on Malaria Data: a case study of Afigya-sekyere district. 2011; a thesis submitted to the department of mathematics, Kwame knrumah university of science and technology.
- Gujarati DN. Basic econometrics. 4th ed. 2004. The Mc Graw Hill Companies. pp.582
- Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Quarterly Statistical bulletin. 2016. Available at https://www.cbn.gov.ng/documents/QuarterlyStatbulletin.asp. Accessed on September, 9th 2016.