Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2013

01-08-2013 | Original Research Article

The Role of Financial Wellbeing, Sociopolitical Attitude, Self-Interest, and Lifestyle in One’s Attitude Toward Social Health Insurance

Authors: Oliver Schnusenberg, Chung-Ping A. Loh, Katrin Nihalani

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There has been continuous debate in the United States, Germany, and China about their respective healthcare systems. While these three countries are dealing with their own unique problems, the question of how social a healthcare system should be is a topic in this debate.

Objective

This study examined how strongly college students’ attitudes toward a social healthcare system relate to ideological orientation and self-interest.

Methods

We used samples of college students in the People’s Republic of China, Germany, and the US, and extracted factors measuring “financial wellbeing,” “sociopolitical attitude,” “self-interest,” and “lifestyle” to explain the “attitude toward social health insurance” (ASHI) construct developed in recent literature (Loh et al. in Eur J Health Econ 13:707–722).

Results

The results of regression analysis showed that sociopolitical attitude/progressivism is positively related to the ASHI, but the degree of association varies considerably from country to country. We also found that a self-interest factor, measured by health status, seems to be inversely related to an individual’s ASHI in the US, but not in China or Germany. Individuals with relatively healthy lifestyle choices were less likely to have a favorable ASHI in Germany, but no such relationship was found in China and the US. These results indicate that while some commonalities exist, there are also considerable differences in the structure of ASHI across these three countries.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the results reported here could help to develop a predictive model that can be utilized to forecast a country’s ASHI. Such a predictive model could be used by politicians to gauge the popularity of a healthcare plan that is under consideration in a particular country.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
In 2008, 87.1 % of Chinese residents were covered by some form of health insurance.
 
2
The data used in the study is based on a set of questions similar to those used in Loh et al. [1] and in the current study.
 
3
Public opinions differ substantially, because individuals differ substantially in their attention and their exposure to elite sources of information [38].
 
4
The second question was taken from the Political Typology Quiz at the Pew Research Center website [39].
 
5
We started with a larger initial set of questions that was reviewed by two Chinese professors. Both professors eliminated most of the questions and argued that they would not be very useful in truly identifying the sociopolitical attitude of Chinese individuals. The third question was taken from the Political Typology Quiz at the Pew Research Center [39].
 
6
This is more restrictive than most factor analysis, which typically utilize loadings with 0.4 or higher [40].
 
7
White’s general test confirms the existence of heteroscedasticity.
 
8
We acknowledge that the selected sample of students may not be representative of the total student population of each country. However, we believe the universities from which the samples were collected are mid-level universities and therefore represent “average” students in each of the countries.
 
9
In Germany, the traditional diploma is still pursued but is being phased out by the bachelor degree. However, 14 % of the sample was still Diploma students, while 19 % of the German sample were pursuing a masters degree. The remaining students were Ph.D. students.
 
10
One criticism of the present study could be that student samples are utilized. However, there is evidence that results from students can be extended to a broader population. For example, Cipriani and Guarino [42] discovered that results from undergraduate students were not dissimilar from results collected from professional investors. Perhaps equally important is the fact that the Chinese students were highly educated and had just obtained voting rights. Arguably, this is an important group to attract.
 
11
In Germany, the difference in proportions for the second question is not statistically significant at conventional levels. Unless indicated otherwise, all other differences noted here are significant at least at the 10 % level.
 
12
Many articles are available on the relevant cutoff for alpha. In exploratory studies, often an alpha as low as 0.60 is acceptable, which is the approach we employ here. An alpha of 0.6 is referred to as “questionable” by George and Mallery [43], while they deem an alpha of 0.5 as “poor.”
 
13
We note that the results reported in Table 4 are not identical to the results reported in Table 3 of Loh et al. [1]. This is because the additional questions used to extract the additional factors examined here resulted in additional missing observations. Please also note that our sample size of 612 students is smaller than the sample size of 724 in Loh et al. [1] because of this.
 
14
These findings were also reported by Loh et al. [1].
 
15
Given the poor alpha of the lifestyle factor, we also repeated the models, this time excluding the lifestyle variable and its interaction terms. The results were almost identical (the only difference was that the Germany coefficient in Model 2 becomes negative and significant) and are available from the authors upon request.
 
16
An exception is the long-time existence of Medicare. But we do not expect the young sample in this study have much experience with the system.
 
Literature
1.
Loh CP, Nihalani K, Schnusenberg O. Measuring attitude toward social health insurance. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:707–22.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Preston I, Ridge M. Demand for local public spending: evidence from the British social attitudes survey. Econ J. 1995;105:644–60.CrossRef
3.
Kinder DR, Sanders LM. Divided by color: racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
4.
Lau RR, Heldman C. Self-interest, symbolic attitudes, and support for public policy: a multilevel analysis. Political Psychol. 2009;30:513–37.CrossRef
5.
Lynch J, Gollust S. Playing fair: fairness beliefs and health policy preferences in the United States. J Health Politics Policy Law. 2010;35:849–87.CrossRef
6.
Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy C, Doescher M, Banthin J. Does skepticism towards medical care predict mortality? Med Care. 1999;37:409–14.PubMedCrossRef
7.
van de Ven W, Xu W. Purchasing health care in China: competing or non-competing third-party purchasers? Health Policy. 2009;92:305–12.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ma J, Lu M, Quan H. From a national, centrally planned health system to a system based on the market: lessons from China. Health Aff. 2008;27:937–48.CrossRef
9.
Blumenthal D, Hsiao W. Privatization and its discontents—the evolving Chinese health care system. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1165–70.PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Cheng T. China’s latest health reforms: a conversation with Chinese health minister Chen Zhu. Health Aff. 2008;27:1103–10.CrossRef
12.
Yip W, Hsiao W. The Chinese Health System at a crossroads. Health Aff. 2008;27:460–8.CrossRef
13.
Hofstede GH. Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1984.
14.
Priester R. A values framework for health system reform. Health Aff. 1992;11:84–107.CrossRef
15.
Reid TR. The healing of America: a global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care. New York: Penguin Books; 2010.
16.
17.
18.
Gooding E. Health care debate in the United States. Charleston: BiblioBazaar; 2011.
19.
Atlas SW. Reforming America’s Health Care System: the flawed vision of ObamaCare. Stanford University: Hoover Institution Press; 2010.
20.
21.
22.
Simon M. Das Gesundheitssystem in Deutschland: Eine Einführung in die Struktur und Funktionsweise. 3., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Mannheim: Huber Verlag; 2010.
23.
Scheffold K. Kundenbindung bei Krankenkassen: Eine marketingorientierte Analyse kassenindividueller Handlungsparameter bei selektivem Kontrahieren auf dem GKV-Versorgungsmarkt. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot; 2008.
24.
Jacobs K, Wasem J. Vier Jahre Gesundeitsfonds—ein Modell mit Zukunft? GGW. 2013;13:15–22.
25.
Göppfarth D. Die Weiterentwicklung des Risikostrukturausgleichs. In: Wille E, Knabner K, editors. Reformkonzepte im Gesundheitswesen nach der Wahl. Bern: Peter Lang; 2011. p. 25–42.
26.
Neugebauer D. Die neue Welt selektiver Verträge im Gesundheitswesen. In: Wille E, Knabner K, editors. Reformkonzepte im Gesundheitswesen nach der Wahl. Bern: Peter Lang; 2011. p. 153–67.
27.
Jacobs K. Finanzierung des deutschen Gesundheitswesen. In: Thielscher C, editor. Medizinökonomie, Band 1: Das System der Medizinischen Versorgung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2012. p. 261–77.CrossRef
28.
Sears DO, Lau RR, Tyler TR, Allen HM. Self-interest versus symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. Am Political Sci Rev. 1980;74:670–84.CrossRef
29.
Sudit M. Ideology or self-interest? Medical students’ attitude toward national health insurance. J Health Soc Behav. 1988;29:376–84.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Corneo G, Gruner HP. Individual’s preferences for political redistribution. J Public Econ. 2002;83:83–107.CrossRef
31.
Strauss R, Hughes D. A new approach to the demand for public goods. J Public Econ. 1976;6:191–204.CrossRef
32.
Hayes BC, VandenHeuvel A. Government spending on health care: a cross-national study of public attitudes. J Health Soc Policy. 1996;7:61–79.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Pescosolido BA, Boyer CA, Tsui WY. Medical care in the welfare state: a cross-national study of public evaluations. J Health Soc Behav. 1985;26:276–97.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Costa-Font J, Garcia-Gonzalez A, Font-Vilalta M. Relative income and attitude towards long-term care financing. Geneva Pap. 2008;33:673–93.
35.
Kikuzawa S, Olafsdottir S, Pescosolido BA. Similar pressures, different contexts: public attitudes toward government intervention for health care in 21 nations. J Health Soc Behav. 2008;49:385–99.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Doherty D, Gerber AS, Green DP. Personal income and attitudes toward redistribution: a study of lottery winners. Political Psychol. 2006;27:441–58.CrossRef
37.
38.
Zaller J. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.CrossRef
39.
40.
Fagenson-Eland E, Ensher EA, Burke WW. Organization development and change interventions: a seven-nation comparison. J Appl Behav Sci. 2004;40:432–64.CrossRef
41.
White H. A heteroskedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38.CrossRef
42.
Cipriani M, Guarino A. Herd behavior in financial markets: an experiment with financial market professionals. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2009;7:206–33.CrossRef
43.
George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
44.
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson; 2010.
45.
Gusmano MK, Schlesinger M, Thomas T. Policy feedback and public opinion: the role of employer responsibility in social policy. J Health Politics Policy Law. 2002;27:731–72.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Role of Financial Wellbeing, Sociopolitical Attitude, Self-Interest, and Lifestyle in One’s Attitude Toward Social Health Insurance
Authors
Oliver Schnusenberg
Chung-Ping A. Loh
Katrin Nihalani
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0036-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2013 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Changes in the Utilization of Venlafaxine after the Introduction of Generics in Sweden

Review Article

Quantifying Benefit–Risk Preferences for Medical Interventions: An Overview of a Growing Empirical Literature

Original Research Article

The Trade-off Between Costs and Quality of Care in the Treatment of Psychosomatic Patients with Somatoform Pain Disorder

Original Research Article

A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an Older Post-Acute Patient Population Relative to the General Population

Original Research Article

A Practical Approach for Calculating Reliable Cost Estimates from Observational Data: Application to Cost Analyses in Maternal and Child Health

Original Research Article

Explaining the Health Costs Associated with Managing Intracranial Aneurysms in Italy