Table 4.
Determinants of Catastrophic Health Expenditure
| Determinant | Tier 2 (n = 274) | Tier 3 (n = 890a) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | Adjusted Odds Ratio | P Value | n | % | Adjusted Odds Ratio | P Value | |
| Total | 18 | 6.6 | 150 | 16.8 | ||||
| Highest education of the household | ||||||||
| Less than Primary | 6 | 28.6 | 7.56 (95% CI 2.07–27.57) | .002 | Education details not collected in this surveillance | |||
| More than Primary | 12 | 4.7 | Ref | |||||
| Household size | ||||||||
| Up to 3 members | 2 | 3.8 | 40 | 22.1 | 1.33 (95% CI 0.86–2.06) | .203 | ||
| More than 3 members | 16 | 7.2 | 110 | 15.5 | Ref | |||
| Sector | ||||||||
| Public | 1 | 0.8 | Ref | .019 | 30 | 9.1 | Ref | <.0001 |
| Private/Charity | 17 | 12.1 | 12.02 (95% C 1.52–95.19) | 120 | 21.5 | 2.69 (95% CI 1.69–4.28) | ||
| Age, y | ||||||||
| <15 | 7 | 8.0 | 65 | 11.6 | Ref | <.0001 | ||
| ≥15 | 11 | 5.9 | 85 | 25.8 | 2.87 (95% CI 1.91–4.3) | |||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 10 | 5.7 | 97 | 17.8 | ||||
| Female | 8 | 8.2 | 53 | 15.3 | ||||
| Insurance | ||||||||
| No | 14 | 6.1 | 118 | 17.2 | ||||
| Yes | 4 | 9.3 | 32 | 15.8 | ||||
| Income quintile | ||||||||
| Q1, poorest | 12 | 18.5 | 6.95 (95% CI 2.25–21.52) | .001 | 60 | 33.3 | 5.31 (95% CI 3.45–8.17) | <.0001 |
| Q2 and above | 6 | 2.87 | Ref | 90 | 12.7 | Ref |
Univariate logistic regression was used to find early predictors and only those found to have an association was built into the regression model to identify predictors.
aCatastrophic health expenditure could not be computed for 1 patient in tier 3 as he/she did not report any expenses.