Economic inequality in satisfaction with healthcare in the Baltic countries during and after the economic crisis (2008–2014)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proportion of respondents who think that the state of healthcare provision in their country is very good or rather good in 2008–14.

Figure 2. Proportion of people who consider healthcare provision in their country very good or rather good, depending on their economic situation (difficulty paying bills) in 2008–14.

Table 1. Logistic regression models of Estonia for assessment of good or very good healthcare provision in the country (reference bad or very bad).

		2008		2009		2010		2011		2014
Independent	Variables	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig
Difficulty of paying bills	From time to time	1.08		1.31		1.39		1.07		1.69
(ref: most of the time)	Almost never	1.35		1.95	*	1.66		1.25		1.55
Age of	Finishing education	1.01		1.04		1.03		1.01		1.06	**
Place of	Small town	1.14		1.78	**	0.97		1.28		0.95
Residence (ref: large city)	Rural	1.15		2.13	***	1.33		1.04		0.89
Gender	Female	0.96		1.12		0.84		0.93		0.89
Age		0.98		0.95		0.96		0.97		0.98
Age squared		1.00		1.00		1.00		1.00		1.00
State of public administration (ref: bad)	Good	3.27	***	2.59	***	2.29	***	3.11	***	3.56	***
Intercept		0.69		0.38		0.97		0.77		0.18
R^2	(Nagelkerke)	0.49		0.42		0.42		0.54		0.56

Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table 2. Logistic regression models of Lithuania for assessment of good or very good healthcare provision in the country (reference bad or very bad).

		2008		2009		2010		2011		2014
Independent	Variables	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig	Exp (B)	Sig
Difficulty of paying bills	From time to time	1.03		1.40		1.02		1.12		1.59
(ref: most of the time)	Almost never	2.57	**	1.84	*	1.90	***	1.62	*	2.25	***
Age of	Finishing education	0.92	*	1.01		1.00		1.01		1.07	**
Place of	Small town	1.13		1.02		1.08		1.09		0.7
Residence (ref: large city)	Rural	1.18		0.80		1.35		1.56		0.95
Gender	Female	1.06		0.77		1.15		0.87		0.97
Age		0.89	***	0.93	*	0.94	*	0.95		0.92	**
Age squared		1.01	***	1.01	*	1.01	*	1.00		1.01	**
State of public administration (ref: bad)	Good	3.30	***	3.42	***	2.42	***	1.91	***	3.49	***
Intercept		20.04	**	1.21		1.23		0.94		1.05
R^2	(Nagelkerke)	0.74		0.65		0.51		0.58		0.65

Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table 3. Logistic regression models of Latvia for assessment of good or very good healthcare provision in the country (reference bad or very bad).

		2008		2009		2010		2011		2014
Independent	Variables	Exp(B)	Sig	Exp(B)	Sig	Exp(B)	Sig	Exp(B)	Sig	Exp(B)	Sig
Difficulty of paying bills	From time to time	1.47		0.93		1.54		1.55	*	2.11	*
(ref: most of the time)	Almost never	1.24		1.39		1.47		1.8	**	2.41	**
Age of	Finishing education	0.99		1.00		1.00		1.03		1.02
Place of	Small town	1.51	*	1.49	*	0.58	*	1.03		0.86
Residence (ref: large city)	Rural	1.69	**	1.17		1.21		1.26		1.07
Gender	Female	0.86		0.68	*	1.21		1.16		0.90
Age		0.98		1.06		0.90	**	0.97		0.88	***
Age squared		1.00		1.00		1.01	**	1.00		1.01	**
State of public administration (ref: bad)	Good	2.89	***	3.68	***	5.19	***	1.96	**	4.38	***
Intercept		0.43		0.17	*	2.26		0.26		1.69
R^2	(Nagelkerke)	0.46		0.39		0.41		0.38		0.49

Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table A1. Descriptive statistics of difficulty of paying bills by country and year.

	Difficulty of paying bills	2008	2009	2010	2011	2014
Estonia	Most of the time	11	9	9	6	8
	Time to time	49	24	28	25	21
	Never or almost never	40	67	63	69	71
	%	100	100	100	100	100
	N	1000	1007	1000	1001	1012
Latvia	Most of the time	25	21	24	25	19
	Time to time	59	36	39	35	35
	Never or almost never	16	43	37	40	46
	%	100	100	100	100	100
	N	1002	1012	1016	1019	1016
Lithuania	Most of the time	24	22	28	27	17
	Time to time	67	39	35	40	36
	Never or almost never	9	39	37	33	47
	%	100	100	100	100	100
	N	1011	1022	1036	1026	1013