Abstract

Background The dominant view in the literature is that informal payments in healthcare universally are a negative phenomenon. By contrast, we theorize that the motivation healthcare users for making informal payments (IP) can be classified into three categories: (1) a cultural norm, (2) “grease the wheels” payments if users offered to pay to get better services, and (3) “sand the wheels” payments if users were asked to pay by healthcare personnel or felt that payments were expected. We further hypothesize that these three categories of payments are differently associated with a user's outcomes, namely, satisfaction with healthcare, local and national government, satisfaction with life, and satisfaction with life of children in the future. Methods We used microdata from the 2016 Life-in-Transition survey. Multivariate regression analysis is used to quantify relationships between these categories of payments and users' outcomes. Results Payments that are the result of cultural norms are associated with better outcomes. On the contrary, “sand the wheel” payments are associated with worse outcomes. We find no association between making “grease the wheels” payments and outcomes. Conclusions This is the first paper which evaluates association between three different categories of informal payments with a wide range of users' outcomes on a diverse sample of countries. Focusing on informal payments in general, rather than explicitly examining specific motivations, obscures the true outcomes of making IP. It is important to distinguish between three different motivations for informal payment, namely, cultural norms, “grease the wheels,” and “sand the wheels” since they have varying associations with user outcomes. From a policy making standpoint, variation in the links between different motivations for making IP and measures of satisfaction suggest that decision-makers should put their primary focus on situations where IP are explicitly asked for or are implied by the situation and that they should differentiate this from cases of gratitude payments. If such measures are not implemented, then policy makers may unintentionally ban the behaviour that is linked with increased satisfaction with healthcare, government, and life (i.e., paying gratitude).

Highlights

  • The dominant view in the literature is that informal payments in healthcare universally are a negative phenomenon

  • informal payments (IP) is defined as a direct contribution in cash or gifts that is in addition to any formally required contributions and which are made by users to healthcare personnel or others acting on their behalf [1, 2]

  • Out-of-pocket payments represent the amount of IP and legitimate legal fees paid in the healthcare sector taken together

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The dominant view in the literature is that informal payments in healthcare universally are a negative phenomenon. This is the first paper which evaluates association between three different categories of informal payments with a wide range of users’ outcomes on a diverse sample of countries. It is important to distinguish between three different motivations for informal payment, namely, cultural norms, “grease the wheels,” and “sand the wheels” since they have varying associations with user outcomes. From a policy making standpoint, variation in the links between different motivations for making IP and measures of satisfaction suggest that decision-makers should put their primary focus on situations where IP are explicitly asked for or are implied by the situation and that they should differentiate this from cases of gratitude payments If such measures are not implemented, policy makers may unintentionally ban the behaviour that is linked with increased satisfaction with healthcare, government, and life (i.e., paying gratitude).

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call