BACKGROUND:
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recently emerged as a major public health hazard in Egypt. However, dramatic healthcare budget constraints limit access to the costly treatment. We assessed risk perception and priority setting for intervention among HCV, unsafe water, and outdoor air pollution in Cairo city.

METHODS:
A survey was conducted in the homes of a representative sample of household heads in Cairo city. Risk perception was assessed using the "psychometric paradigm" where health hazards are evaluated according to several attributes and then summarized by principal component analysis. Priority setting was assessed by individual ranking of interventions reducing health hazards by 50% over five years. The Condorcet method was used to aggregate individual rankings of the three interventions (main study) or two of three interventions (validation study). Explanatory factors of priority setting were explored in multivariate generalized logistic models.

RESULTS:
HCV was perceived as having the most severe consequences in terms of illness and out-of-pocket costs, while outdoor air pollution was perceived as the most uncontrollable risk. In the main study (n = 2,603), improved water supply received higher priority than both improved outdoor air quality (60.1%, P < .0001) and screening and treatment of chronic hepatitis C (66.3%, P < .0001), as confirmed in the validation study (n = 1,019). Higher education, report of HCV-related diseases in the household, and perception of HCV as the most severe risk were significantly associated to setting HCV treatment as the first priority.

CONCLUSIONS:
The Cairo community prefers to further improving water supply as compared to improved outdoor air quality and screening and treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

This paper presents an application of the Urban and Lambert"upgraded-AJL Decomposition" approach that was designed to deal with the problem of close-income equals in equity analysis, and as applied to the area of health care finance. Contrary to most previous studies, vertical and horizontal inequities and the triple effects of inter-groups, intra-group and entire-group reranking of various financing schemes are estimated, with statistical significance calculated using the bootstrap method. Application is made on the three financing schemes present in the case of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Results demonstrate the relative importance of the three forms of reranking in determining overall inequality. The paper offers policy recommendations to limit the existing inequalities in the system and to enhance the capacity of the governmental insurance scheme.

The small sample size of contingent valuation (CV) surveys conducted in patients may have limited the use of the single-bounded (SB) dichotomous choice format which is recommended in environmental economics. In this paper, we explore two ways to increase the statistical efficiency of the SB format: (1) by the inclusion of proxies in addition to patients; (2) by the addition of a follow-up dichotomous question, i.e. the double-bounded (DB) dichotomous choice format. We found that patients ( n = 223 ) and spouses ( n = 64 ) answering on behalf of the patient had on average a similar willingness-to-pay for earlier alleviation of flu symptoms. However, a patient was significantly more likely to anchor his/her answer on the first bid as compared to a spouse. Finally, our original DB model with shift effect and heterogeneous anchoring reconciled the discrepancies found in willingness-to-pay statistics between SB and DB models in keeping with increased statistical efficiency.

This paper analyzes the redistributive effect and progressivity associated with the current health care financing schemes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, using data from the first Palestinian Household Health Expenditure Survey conducted in 2004. The paper goes beyond the commonly used “aggregate summary index approach” to apply a more detailed “disaggregate approach”. Such an approach is borrowed from the general economic literature on taxation, and examines redistributive and vertical effects over specific parts of the income distribution, using the dominance criterion. In addition, the paper employs a bootstrap method to test for the statistical significance of the inequality measures. While both the aggregate and disaggregate approaches confirm the pro-rich and regressive character of out-of-pocket payments, the aggregate approach does not ascertain the potential progressive feature of any of the available insurance schemes. The disaggregate approach, however, significantly reveals a progressive aspect, for over half of the population, of the government health insurance scheme, and demonstrates that the regressivity of the out-of-pocket payments is most pronounced among the worst-off classes of the population. Recommendations are advanced to improve the performance of the government insurance schemes to enhance its capacity in limiting inequalities in health care financing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.