Table 2.
Effects of illness shocks on expenditure measures, by user status
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
| Total exp | Nonmedical exp | Propensity to spend on medical care | Medical exp | Food exp | Nonfood subsistence exp | Propensity to spend on education | Education exp | Propensity to receive remittances | Total received | |
| M-PESA users | 0.118*** (0.029) | 0.067** (0.028) | 0.334*** (0.035) | 0.310 (0.197) | 0.047* (0.028) | 0.102* (0.058) | 0.037 (0.034) | 0.034 (0.162) | 0.094*** (0.036) | 0.127 (0.186) |
| Nonusers | −0.027 (0.050) | −0.096* (0.051) | 0.296*** (0.041) | 0.625** (0.252) | −0.044 (0.047) | −0.137 (0.087) | −0.059 (0.036) | −0.064 (0.195) | −0.020 (0.041) | 0.107 (0.431) |
| Difference | ** | *** | * | ** | * | ** |
With controls for household demographics (age/sex composition of the household, size of the household, and size squared), years of education of the household head, household head occupation dummies (for the three categories of farmer, business, and professional), the use of three main financial instruments (bank accounts, savings and credit cooperatives, and rotating savings and credit associations), and cell phone ownership. All specifications also include an index capturing the wealth of the neighborhood and the interaction of this with the illness shock, province by time dummies, and household fixed effects (as per Eq. 1). The last row of each column reports the significance level of the difference between users and nonusers. SEs are in parentheses. All expenditure variables (exp) are measured in logs. For the expenditures on health and education, the results are for the sample that spends on health and education and are the intensive margin effects.
*P = 0.10; **P = 0.05; ***P = 0.01.