Table 5 Impoverishment effects of OOP expenditure (%), normative food, housing (rent), and utilities method
From: Financial risk protection against noncommunicable diseases: trends and patterns in Bangladesh
Impoverishment risk categories a | Households affected by non-NCD only | Households affected by NCD only | Households affected by both NCD and non-NCD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 (n = 2,875) | 2010 (n = 2,931) | 2016 (n = 10,391) | 2005 (n = 1,648) | 2010 (n = 2, 449) | 2016 (n = 9,393) | 2005 (n = 1,806) | 2010 (n = 2,440) | 2016 (n = 10,160) | |
1. Further impoverished | 10.8 (0.6) | 10.4 (0.8) | 7.3 (0.4) | 8.0 (0.7) | 8.7 (0.6) | 6.7 (0.4) | 7.8 (0.7) | 7.3 (0.6) | 5.3 (0.3) |
2. Impoverished | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.6 (0.3) | 1.5 (0.1) | 1.4 (0.3) | 1.4 (0.2) | 2.0 (0.2) | 1.7 (0.3) | 1.5 (0.3) | 1.5 (0.1) |
3. At-risk of impoverishment b | 11.7 (0.6) | 11.7 (0.7) | 8.2 (0.4) | 9.4 (0.7) | 7.3 (0.5) | 7.4 (0.4) | 9.0 (0.7) | 8.9 (0.7) | 6.4 (0.3) |
4. Not at-risk of impoverishment | 71.3 (0.9) | 68.6 (1.4) | 78.3 (0.9) | 78.3 (1.0) | 76.3 (1.3) | 79.0 (0.7) | 79.3 (1.0) | 77.6 (1.1) | 83.4 (0.6) |
5. Non-spenders | 5.0 (0.4) | 7.6 (1.0) | 4.8 (0.4) | 2.9 (0.4) | 6.3 (1.0) | 4.9 (0.4) | 2.2 (0.4) | 4.6 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.3) |
Non-spenders disaggregated by reasons | |||||||||
 5a. Financial reasons | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.1) | 0.1 (0.0) |
 5b. Non-financial reasonsc | 1.0 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.1) | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.6 (0.1) |
 5c. Unspecified reasonsd | 0.0 (n/o) | 0.0 (n/o) | 0.0 (n/o) | 1.8 (0.3) | 4.2 (0.9) | 3.7 (0.3) | 0.0 (n/o) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.0) |
 5d. Non-spender but sought care | 3.7 (0.4) | 6.3 (0.8) | 3.4 (0.3) | 0.8 (0.2) | 2.0 (0.5) | 1.1 (0.1) | 2.0 (0.4) | 4.2 (0.6) | 2.5 (0.3) |