# The discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments of catastrophic health expenditure: evidence from China

## TL;DR

This study compares how people in China subjectively perceive catastrophic health expenses versus objective measures, finding significant differences and highlighting socioeconomic factors.

## Contribution

The study is the first to examine the discrepancy between subjective and objective assessments of catastrophic health expenditure.

## Key findings

- Self-rated catastrophic health expenditure was significantly higher than objective measures.
- Lower income and education levels were linked to higher odds of self-rated CHE without objective support.
- The budget share method showed the most consistency with self-ratings compared to other indicators.

## Abstract

The pro-rich nature of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) indicators has garnered criticism, inspiring the exploration of the subjective approach as a complementary method. However, no studies have examined the discrepancy between subjective and objective approaches. Employing data from the Chinese Social Survey (CSS) 2013–2021 waves, we analysed the discrepancy between objective and subjective CHE and its associated socioeconomic factors using logit regression modelling. Overall, self-rating generated higher CHE incidence (28.35% to 33.72%) compared to objective indicators (9.92% to 21.97%). Objective indicators did not support 17.57% to 23.90% of self-rated cases of household CHE, while 2.73% to 8.42% of households classified with CHE by objective indicators did not self-rate with CHE. The normative subsistence spending indicator showed the least consistency with self-rating (70.66% to 74.28%), while the budget share method produced the most consistent estimation (72.73% to 76.10%). Living with elderly and young children [adjusted odds ratios (AOR): 1.069 to 1.169, P < 0.1], lower educational attainment (AOR: 1.106 to 1.225, P < 0.1), lower income (AOR: 1.394 to 2.062, P < 0.01), and lower perceived social class (AOR: 1.537 to 2.801, P < 0.05) were associated with higher odds of self-rated CHE without support from objective indicators. Conversely, low socioeconomic status (AOR: 0.324 to 0.819, P < 0.1) was associated with lower odds of missing CHE cases classified by objective indicators in self-rating. The commonly used objective indicators for assessing CHE may attract doubts about their fairness from socioeconomically disadvantaged people. The CHE subjective approach can be adopted as a complementary measure to monitor financial risk protection.