[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/100783.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Socioeconomic inequality in life expectancy in India

Author

Listed:
  • Asaria, Miqdad
  • Mazumdar, Sumit
  • Chowdhury, Samir
  • Mazumdar, Papiya
  • Mukhopadhyay, Abhiroop
  • Gupta, Indrani
Abstract
Introduction Concern for health inequalities is an important driver of health policy in India; however, much of the empirical evidence regarding health inequalities in the country is piecemeal focusing only on specific diseases or on access to particular treatments. This study estimates inequalities in health across the whole life course for the entire Indian population. These estimates are used to calculate the socioeconomic disparities in life expectancy at birth in the population. Methods Population mortality data from the Indian Sample Registration System were combined with data on mortality rates by wealth quintile from the National Family Health Survey to calculate wealth quintile specific mortality rates. Results were calculated separately for males and females as well as for urban and rural populations. Life tables were constructed for each subpopulation and used to calculate distributions of life expectancy at birth by wealth quintile. Absolute gap and relative gap indices of inequality were used to quantify the health disparity in terms of life expectancy at birth between the richest and poorest fifths of households. results Life expectancy at birth was 65.1 years for the poorest fifth of households in India as compared with 72.7 years for the richest fifth of households. This constituted an absolute gap of 7.6 years and a relative gap of 11.7 %. Women had both higher life expectancy at birth and narrower wealth-related disparities in life expectancy than men. Life expectancy at birth was higher across the wealth distribution in urban households as compared with rural households with inequalities in life expectancy widest for men living in urban areas and narrowest for women living in urban areas. Conclusion As India progresses towards Universal Health Coverage, the baseline social distributions of health estimated in this study will allow policy makers to target and monitor the health equity impacts of health policies introduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Asaria, Miqdad & Mazumdar, Sumit & Chowdhury, Samir & Mazumdar, Papiya & Mukhopadhyay, Abhiroop & Gupta, Indrani, 2019. "Socioeconomic inequality in life expectancy in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100783, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:100783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100783/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2015. "Distributional Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes – A Methodological Case Study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 742-754, June.
    2. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shreya Banerjee & Indrani Roy Chowdhury, 2020. "Inequities in curative health-care utilization among the adult population (20–59 years) in India: A comparative analysis of NSS 71st (2014) and 75th (2017–18) rounds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Saxena, Akshar & Mendenhall, Emily, 2022. "Syndemic thinking in large-scale studies: Case studies of disability, hypertension, and diabetes across income groups in India and China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Robson & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson & Aki Tsuchiya & Shehzad Ali, 2017. "Eliciting the Level of Health Inequality Aversion in England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(10), pages 1328-1334, October.
    2. James Love-Koh & Susan Griffin & Edward Kataika & Paul Revill & Sibusiso Sibandze & Simon Walker, 2019. "Incorporating concerns for equity into health resource allocation. A guide for practitioners," Working Papers 160cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Dukhanin, Vadim & Searle, Alexandra & Zwerling, Alice & Dowdy, David W. & Taylor, Holly A. & Merritt, Maria W., 2018. "Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 27-35.
    4. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    5. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    7. Dirk Steijger & Chandrima Chatterjee & Wim Groot & Milena Pavlova, 2022. "Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Dolly Han & Nicolas Iragorri & Fiona Clement & Diane Lorenzetti & Eldon Spackman, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Chronic Constipation: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 435-449, April.
    9. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    10. Susan Griffin & James Love-Koh & Becky Pennington & Lesley Owen, 2019. "Evaluation of Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 171-182, April.
    11. Edward Henry & John Cullinan, 2024. "Addressing the distributional consequences of spillovers in health economic evaluation: A prioritarian approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 764-778, April.
    12. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & Anthony J. Culyer, 2018. "Does MCDA Trump CEA?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 147-151, April.
    13. Jessica Ochalek & Karl Claxton & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Alexandra Rollinger, 2016. "Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi," Working Papers 136cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    15. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    16. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    17. Miqdad Asaria, 2017. "Health care costs in the English NHS: reference tables for average annual NHS spend by age, sex and deprivation group," Working Papers 147cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Hill, Sarah R. & Vale, Luke & Hunter, David & Henderson, Emily & Oluboyede, Yemi, 2017. "Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1249-1262.
    19. Kirwin, Erin & Meacock, Rachel & Round, Jeff & Sutton, Matt, 2022. "The diagonal approach: A theoretic framework for the economic evaluation of vertical and horizontal interventions in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    20. James Love-Koh & Richard Cookson & Karl Claxton & Susan Griffin, 2020. "Estimating Social Variation in the Health Effects of Changes in Health Care Expenditure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 170-182, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:100783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.