The paradox of the cost and affordability of traditional and government health services in Tanzania.

Abstract

Since the introduction of user fee systems in the government health facilities of most African countries, which shifted part of the burden of financing health care onto the community, affordability of basic health care has been a much discussed topic. It is sometimes assumed that in areas where high levels of spending for traditional treatments are common, people would be able to pay for basic health care at governmental facilities, but may not be willing to do so. However, examining willingness to pay and ability to pay in the broader context of different types of illness and their treatment leads us to a very different conclusion. In the course of a medical-ethnographic study in south-eastern Tanzania, we found evidence that people may indeed be willing, but may nevertheless not be able, to pay for biomedical health care--even when they can afford costly traditional medicine. In this article, we suggest that the ability to pay for traditional treatment can differ from ability to pay for hospital attendance for two main reasons. First, many healers--in contrast to the hospital--offer alternatives to cash payments, such as compensation in kind or in work, or payment on a credit basis. Secondly, and more importantly, the activation of social networks for financial help is different for the two sectors. For the poor in particular, ability to pay for health care depends a great deal on contributions from relatives, neighbours and friends. The treatment of the 'personalistic' type of illness, which is carried out by a traditional healer, involves an extended kin-group, and there is high social pressure to comply with the requirements of the family elders, which may include providing financial support. In contrast, the costs for the treatment of 'normal' illnesses at the hospital are usually covered by the patient him/herself, or a small circle of relatives and friends.