METHODS: A cross-section of 163,397 adults aged 35 to 70 years were recruited from 661 urban and rural communities in selected low-, middle- and high-income countries (complete data for this analysis from 151,619 participants). Using blood pressure measurements, self-reported health and household data, concentration indices adjusted for age, sex and urban-rural location, we estimate the magnitude of wealth-related inequalities in the levels of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in each of the 21 country samples.
RESULTS: Overall, the magnitude of wealth-related inequalities in hypertension awareness, treatment, and control was observed to be higher in poorer than in richer countries. In poorer countries, levels of hypertension awareness and treatment tended to be higher among wealthier households; while a similar pro-rich distribution was observed for hypertension control in countries at all levels of economic development. In some countries, hypertension awareness was greater among the poor (Sweden, Argentina, Poland), as was treatment (Sweden, Poland) and control (Sweden).
CONCLUSION: Inequality in hypertension management outcomes decreased as countries became richer, but the considerable variation in patterns of wealth-related inequality - even among countries at similar levels of economic development - underscores the importance of health systems in improving hypertension management for all. These findings show that some, but not all, countries, including those with limited resources, have been able to achieve more equitable management of hypertension; and strategies must be tailored to national contexts to achieve optimal impact at population level.
METHODS: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China.
RESULTS: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs.