The Impact of Socio-Economic Factors on the Willingness of the Population to Maintain and Accumulate Health Capital

Purpose of the article is to identify the relationship between willingness to support, family living standards and individual’s health self-assessment within the framework of the Kazakhstani population participation of in health insurance. The empirical basis of the study was the archive of sociological survey data, which is based on the population responses, taking into account the opinions in the pharmaceutical industry experts, medical workers and specialists in the insurance market. The results of the statistical analysis showed the presence of significant links between “Willingness to support” and “Self-assessment of individual health”, between “Willingness to support” and “Average monthly income per capita in the family”, as well as between “Willingness to support” and “Family living standards”. It was also found that the willingness to support is different for different strata of the population: among the population with a high self-assessment of health, a high standard of living and a high level of per capita income in the family, it is higher. In addition, the article analyzes the current state of health insurance market in the Republic of Kazakhstan, where, as a result, it was revealed that due to quarantine measures, the number of concluded insurance contracts has almost halved. The results obtained can be used by authorized state bodies in the development of health insurance programs, as well as measures to ensure the safety of the health care system of the Republic of Kazakhstan and policies in the field of effective health care.

1. Currie, J., & Schwandt, H. (2016). Mortality inequality: The good news from a county-level approach. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.29

2. Baji, P., et al. (2014). The link between past informal payments and willingness of Hungarian population to pay formal fees for health care services: results from a contingent valuation study. European Journal of Health Economics, 15(8), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0531-y

3. Kaneva, M.A., Avksent’ev, N.A., & Bajdin, V.M. (2015). Gotovnost’ platit’ za dobrovol’noe medicinskoe strahovanie na uslovijah sofinansirovanija: regressionnyj analiz. Finansovyj zhurnal, 5(27), 80–90.

4. Gerry, C.J., Kaneva, M., & Zasimova, L. (2017). Reforming voluntary drug insurance in Russian healthcare: does social solidarity matter? Health policy, 121(11), 1177–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.09.001

5. Zhang, L., et al. (2006). Social capital and farmer’s willingness-to-join a newly established community-based health insurance in rural China. Health policy, 76(2), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.001

6. Danyliv, A., et al. (2013). Willingness to pay for physician services at a primary contact in Ukraine: results of a contingent valuation study. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 208. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-208

7. Yasunaga, H. (2008). Willingness to pay for mass screening for prostate cancer: A contingent valuation survey. International Journal of Urology, 15(1), 102–105.

8. Jagudina, R.I. i dr. (2015). Opredelenie poroga «gotovnosti platit’» pri odobrenii medicinskih tehnologij v uslovijah rossijskogo zdravoohranenija, rasschitannogo na osnove pariteta pokupatel’noj sposobnosti. Farmakojekonomika: teorija i praktika, 3(3), 5–9.

9. Kacnel’son, B.A. i dr. (2007). Koncepcija «priemlemogo» riska – kljuchevoj diskussionnyj vopros ocenki i upravlenija riskami dlja zdorov›ja naselenija. Gigiena i sanitarija, 3, 76–80.

10. Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2003). Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Economics, 12, 1049–1060.

11. Laupacis, A., et al. (1992). How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 146, 473–481.

12. Kaplan, R.M. & Bush, J.W. (1982). Healthrelated quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychology, 1, 61–80.

13. Ubel, P.A., et al. (2003). What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 1637–1664.

14. Hirth, R.A., et al. (2000). Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Medical Decision Making, 20, 32–34.

15. Tepcova, T.S. i dr. (2018). Vozmozhnye metodiki opredelenija poroga gotovnosti platit’ dlja prinjatija reshenij o finansirovanii tehnologij zdravoohranenija za schet bjudzhetnyh sredstv. Farmakojekonomika. Sovremennaja farmakojekonomika i farmakojepidemiologija, 11(3), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.3-013-022

16. Tambor, M., et al. (2014). Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method. Social Science & Medicine, 116, 193–201.

17. Zelenova, O.V. (2011). Issledovanie opredelenija poroga gotovnosti platit’ metodom uslovnoj ocenki za uslugi medicinskogo naznachenija i lechenie. Social’nye aspekty zdorov’ja naselenija, 21 (5), 7–17.

18. Mehrdad, R. (2009). Health System in Iran. JMAJ, 52(1), 69–73.

19. Spankulova, L.S. (2016). Udovletvorennost’ kachestvom zhizni, svjazannogo so zdorov’em v zavisimosti ot urovnja dohodov naselenija, prozhivajushhih v oblastjah s vysokim jekologicheskim riskom. Psihologicheskoe zdorov’e lichnosti: teorija i praktika: sbornik nauchnyh trudov po materialam III Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, 128–130.

20. Novickaja, K E. (2009). Individual’nye strategii uchastnikov gosprogrammy dopolnitel’nogo lekarstvennogo obespechenija. Sociologicheskie issledovanija, 5(301), 59–69.