TY - JOUR
T1 - The progressivity of health care revenue financing in 29 countries
T2 - A comparison
AU - Võrk, Andres
AU - Pažitný, Peter
AU - Waitzberg, Ruth
AU - Allin, Sara
AU - Behmane, Daiga
AU - Bouckaert, Nicolas
AU - Bricard, Damien
AU - Bryndová, Lucie
AU - Dimova, Antoniya
AU - Cascini, Fidelia
AU - Gaál, Péter
AU - Habimana, Katharina
AU - Kantaris, Marios
AU - Kocot, Ewa
AU - Kroneman, Madelon
AU - Murauskienė, Liubovė
AU - Or, Zeynep
AU - de Pietro, Carlo
AU - Saunes, Ingrid S.
AU - Thomas, Steve
AU - Vrangbæk, Karsten
AU - Rice, Thomas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025
PY - 2025/9
Y1 - 2025/9
N2 - Background: This study assesses progressivity in public and private health care revenue collection among 29 high-income countries by combining the results of two previous articles comprising this special section of Health Policy. In those studies, we developed qualitatively based scores regarding revenue collection policies for three public revenue sources (income taxes, social insurance contributions, consumption taxes) and two private revenue sources (voluntary health insurance, out-of-pocket payments). Objective: The current study sums these scores, weighted by the shares of each revenue source in each country, to calculate an overall progressivity score for each country. Methods: We derived weights for each revenue source using publicly available OECD and Eurostat macrolevel data on the structure of health care financing and government revenues. Results: France was the country that had the most progressive system, and Latvia, Hungary, and Bulgaria, the least progressive. Conclusions: Countries relying more on out-of-pocket payments tend to be more regressive overall, suggesting that, from an equity perspective, their role should remain limited. Tax-based systems do not inherently ensure progressivity, especially when relying heavily on regressive consumption taxes. While wealthier countries and those with less income inequality tend to be more progressive, in contrast, Switzerland and Germany both scored among the more regressive countries. Our study shows that policy matters in promoting progressivity in health system revenue collection. Both public and private sources can be regressive if nothing is done. Yet, there are policy instruments that can mitigate regressivity, and even private sources of funds can be made less regressive.
AB - Background: This study assesses progressivity in public and private health care revenue collection among 29 high-income countries by combining the results of two previous articles comprising this special section of Health Policy. In those studies, we developed qualitatively based scores regarding revenue collection policies for three public revenue sources (income taxes, social insurance contributions, consumption taxes) and two private revenue sources (voluntary health insurance, out-of-pocket payments). Objective: The current study sums these scores, weighted by the shares of each revenue source in each country, to calculate an overall progressivity score for each country. Methods: We derived weights for each revenue source using publicly available OECD and Eurostat macrolevel data on the structure of health care financing and government revenues. Results: France was the country that had the most progressive system, and Latvia, Hungary, and Bulgaria, the least progressive. Conclusions: Countries relying more on out-of-pocket payments tend to be more regressive overall, suggesting that, from an equity perspective, their role should remain limited. Tax-based systems do not inherently ensure progressivity, especially when relying heavily on regressive consumption taxes. While wealthier countries and those with less income inequality tend to be more progressive, in contrast, Switzerland and Germany both scored among the more regressive countries. Our study shows that policy matters in promoting progressivity in health system revenue collection. Both public and private sources can be regressive if nothing is done. Yet, there are policy instruments that can mitigate regressivity, and even private sources of funds can be made less regressive.
KW - Equity
KW - Healthcare financing
KW - Private funds
KW - Progressivity
KW - Public funds
KW - Regressivity
KW - Taxes/economics
KW - Humans
KW - Public Sector/economics
KW - Insurance, Health/economics
KW - Financing, Personal
KW - Developed Countries
KW - Private Sector/economics
KW - Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data
KW - Delivery of Health Care/economics
KW - Health Policy
KW - Healthcare Financing
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105010015066
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/26d1d9ab-1437-3512-8ae2-863dcf1bf534/
U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105381
DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105381
M3 - Article
C2 - 40639124
AN - SCOPUS:105010015066
SN - 0168-8510
VL - 159
JO - Health Policy
JF - Health Policy
M1 - 105381
ER -