During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing... more During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing measures to reduce social interaction between people. Th ose measures could be introduced on national, regional and local levels depending on particular country. Th ey range from advice about not leaving home (self-isolation) to strict quarantine measures. Th e choice of particular measures relies on the trade-off between preserving as many lives as possible and maintaining the economic well-being of population. In this paper, we use theoretical tools to investigate which strategies are the most benefi cial in providing social welfare. Th us, we apply the "prisoner's dilemma" to model individual decision- making process regarding social distancing. We show that the decision on whether to comply or not with the quarantine regime depends on the individual preferences, as well as the losses incurred by isolation, and the likelihood of receiving necessary and timely medical care in case of illness. We draw parallels between our fi ndings and real quarantine measures that have been applied in diff erent countries. Th eoretically, we show that universal full-scale quarantine measures (total stay-home policy) cannot be considered as the most benefi cial policy from the social welfare perspective. Instead, planning strategic incentives for diff erent homogeneous population groups is a more preferable strategy
Most people spend a large part of their adult life at work. This study investigated how access to... more Most people spend a large part of their adult life at work. This study investigated how access to sports infrastructure near workplaces is related to the sports participation of working adults, com...
The paper discusses factors that have impact on individual attitudes towards bans on smoking in a... more The paper discusses factors that have impact on individual attitudes towards bans on smoking in a number of public places — hospitals, universities, work sites, sports facilities, cafes and restaurants, bars and clubs. Using data from national public opinion survey conducted in 2011 by Levada Center for HSE we show that support of smoking bans varies across types of public places and depends on different social and economic characteristics of individuals. Smoking is an important but not the only determining factor.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Mar 15, 2016
Background: Despite the constitutional right of all Russian citizens to free medical care, out-of... more Background: Despite the constitutional right of all Russian citizens to free medical care, out-of-pocket payment is a widespread phenomenon for all types of medical treatment. The aims of this paper are twofold: To present new evidence on the use of, and payment for, outpatient and inpatient treatment in Russia; and to compare the motivations behind both official and informal payments for outpatient services provided in public medical institutions. Methods: This study uses data from a quantitative household survey conducted in April 2014. The sample comprised 1602 individuals aged ⩾ 18 years, representing the entire adult population of the Russian Federation. We studied three types of medical care: inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment and medicines. Results: Our study found that 22.2% of patients pay for outpatient services, 37.5% pay for inpatient services and 91.5% pay for outpatient medicinal treatment. The informal payments are almost equally met in both outpatient (13.4%) and inpatient (12.2%) care; while the official payments are more common in inpatient care (25.2%), compared to outpatient care (8.8%). The main reasons for informal payment include: improvements in the quality of care and gratitude for medical staff. The official payments are more frequently motivated by an inability to receive a certain treatment free of charge. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that both official and informal payments for medical treatment are widespread in Russia: Informal payments are strongly preferred over official payments for outpatient care, while official payments dominate in inpatient care.
Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and ... more Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and its complications, as well as economic hardship due to the crisis caused by the pandemic. The purpose of the study. To identify key factors that determined the Russian households’ spending on medicines and dietary supplements during the pandemic. Material and Methods. The study used Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey - National Research University “Higher School of Economics” samples of households and adults for the year 2020. We employed regression models to estimate the probability of purchasing medicines and dietary supplements, and family expenses on medicines and dietary supplements, depending on medical factors, healthy lifestyle factors, socio-economic and demographic factors. Results. The probability of buying medicines and dietary supplements and the household expenditures were higher in families with the disabled, individuals with multimorbidity, with self-reported poor health, and with pensioners. High expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements were observed in families which members visited doctors on a regular basis. Both the probability and expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements rose with the increase in average per capita income. The presence of children under 14 years in the family was associated with a decrease in expenditures on medicines. Smoking, overweight and sports were significant contributors to expenditures on medicines and supplements, although their relative contributions were quite small. Private health insurance did not affect expenditures on medicines. Residents of the Northwestern Federal District spent significantly more on medicines compared to residents of other districts. Conclusions. Expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements in 2020 were largely explained by the following two key factors - people suffering from two or more chronic conditions in the family and the average per capita income. Other household factors, although significant, contributed much less to the decision to spend on medicines and dietary supplements. Public provision of medicines especially during economic crisis can be improved by supporting poor households and including patients with multimorbidity into drug reimbursement programs and thus expanding the number of its beneficiaries. Scope of application. The study results can be used to improve policy on pharmaceutical provision of the population.
Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and ... more Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and its complications, as well as economic hardship due to the crisis caused by the pandemic. The purpose of the study. To identify key factors that determined the Russian households’ spending on medicines and dietary supplements during the pandemic. Material and Methods. The study used Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey - National Research University “Higher School of Economics” samples of households and adults for the year 2020. We employed regression models to estimate the probability of purchasing medicines and dietary supplements, and family expenses on medicines and dietary supplements, depending on medical factors, healthy lifestyle factors, socio-economic and demographic factors. Results. The probability of buying medicines and dietary supplements and the household expenditures were higher in families with the disabled, individuals with multimorbidity, with self-reported poor hea...
Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo I Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya-Public Administration Issues, 2020
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing... more During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing measures to reduce social interaction between people. Th ose measures could be introduced on national, regional and local levels depending on particular country. Th ey range from advice about not leaving home (self-isolation) to strict quarantine measures. Th e choice of particular measures relies on the trade-off between preserving as many lives as possible and maintaining the economic well-being of population. In this paper, we use theoretical tools to investigate which strategies are the most benefi cial in providing social welfare. Th us, we apply the "prisoner's dilemma" to model individual decision- making process regarding social distancing. We show that the decision on whether to comply or not with the quarantine regime depends on the individual preferences, as well as the losses incurred by isolation, and the likelihood of receiving necessary and timely medical care in case of illness. We draw parallels between our fi ndings and real quarantine measures that have been applied in diff erent countries. Th eoretically, we show that universal full-scale quarantine measures (total stay-home policy) cannot be considered as the most benefi cial policy from the social welfare perspective. Instead, planning strategic incentives for diff erent homogeneous population groups is a more preferable strategy
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing... more During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing measures to reduce social interaction between people. Th ose measures could be introduced on national, regional and local levels depending on particular country. Th ey range from advice about not leaving home (self-isolation) to strict quarantine measures. Th e choice of particular measures relies on the trade-off between preserving as many lives as possible and maintaining the economic well-being of population. In this paper, we use theoretical tools to investigate which strategies are the most benefi cial in providing social welfare. Th us, we apply the "prisoner's dilemma" to model individual decision- making process regarding social distancing. We show that the decision on whether to comply or not with the quarantine regime depends on the individual preferences, as well as the losses incurred by isolation, and the likelihood of receiving necessary and timely medical care in case of illness. We draw parallels between our fi ndings and real quarantine measures that have been applied in diff erent countries. Th eoretically, we show that universal full-scale quarantine measures (total stay-home policy) cannot be considered as the most benefi cial policy from the social welfare perspective. Instead, planning strategic incentives for diff erent homogeneous population groups is a more preferable strategy
Most people spend a large part of their adult life at work. This study investigated how access to... more Most people spend a large part of their adult life at work. This study investigated how access to sports infrastructure near workplaces is related to the sports participation of working adults, com...
The paper discusses factors that have impact on individual attitudes towards bans on smoking in a... more The paper discusses factors that have impact on individual attitudes towards bans on smoking in a number of public places — hospitals, universities, work sites, sports facilities, cafes and restaurants, bars and clubs. Using data from national public opinion survey conducted in 2011 by Levada Center for HSE we show that support of smoking bans varies across types of public places and depends on different social and economic characteristics of individuals. Smoking is an important but not the only determining factor.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Mar 15, 2016
Background: Despite the constitutional right of all Russian citizens to free medical care, out-of... more Background: Despite the constitutional right of all Russian citizens to free medical care, out-of-pocket payment is a widespread phenomenon for all types of medical treatment. The aims of this paper are twofold: To present new evidence on the use of, and payment for, outpatient and inpatient treatment in Russia; and to compare the motivations behind both official and informal payments for outpatient services provided in public medical institutions. Methods: This study uses data from a quantitative household survey conducted in April 2014. The sample comprised 1602 individuals aged ⩾ 18 years, representing the entire adult population of the Russian Federation. We studied three types of medical care: inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment and medicines. Results: Our study found that 22.2% of patients pay for outpatient services, 37.5% pay for inpatient services and 91.5% pay for outpatient medicinal treatment. The informal payments are almost equally met in both outpatient (13.4%) and inpatient (12.2%) care; while the official payments are more common in inpatient care (25.2%), compared to outpatient care (8.8%). The main reasons for informal payment include: improvements in the quality of care and gratitude for medical staff. The official payments are more frequently motivated by an inability to receive a certain treatment free of charge. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that both official and informal payments for medical treatment are widespread in Russia: Informal payments are strongly preferred over official payments for outpatient care, while official payments dominate in inpatient care.
Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and ... more Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and its complications, as well as economic hardship due to the crisis caused by the pandemic. The purpose of the study. To identify key factors that determined the Russian households’ spending on medicines and dietary supplements during the pandemic. Material and Methods. The study used Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey - National Research University “Higher School of Economics” samples of households and adults for the year 2020. We employed regression models to estimate the probability of purchasing medicines and dietary supplements, and family expenses on medicines and dietary supplements, depending on medical factors, healthy lifestyle factors, socio-economic and demographic factors. Results. The probability of buying medicines and dietary supplements and the household expenditures were higher in families with the disabled, individuals with multimorbidity, with self-reported poor health, and with pensioners. High expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements were observed in families which members visited doctors on a regular basis. Both the probability and expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements rose with the increase in average per capita income. The presence of children under 14 years in the family was associated with a decrease in expenditures on medicines. Smoking, overweight and sports were significant contributors to expenditures on medicines and supplements, although their relative contributions were quite small. Private health insurance did not affect expenditures on medicines. Residents of the Northwestern Federal District spent significantly more on medicines compared to residents of other districts. Conclusions. Expenditures on medicines and dietary supplements in 2020 were largely explained by the following two key factors - people suffering from two or more chronic conditions in the family and the average per capita income. Other household factors, although significant, contributed much less to the decision to spend on medicines and dietary supplements. Public provision of medicines especially during economic crisis can be improved by supporting poor households and including patients with multimorbidity into drug reimbursement programs and thus expanding the number of its beneficiaries. Scope of application. The study results can be used to improve policy on pharmaceutical provision of the population.
Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and ... more Significance. In 2020, many Russians faced an increased need for medicines to treat COVID-19 and its complications, as well as economic hardship due to the crisis caused by the pandemic. The purpose of the study. To identify key factors that determined the Russian households’ spending on medicines and dietary supplements during the pandemic. Material and Methods. The study used Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey - National Research University “Higher School of Economics” samples of households and adults for the year 2020. We employed regression models to estimate the probability of purchasing medicines and dietary supplements, and family expenses on medicines and dietary supplements, depending on medical factors, healthy lifestyle factors, socio-economic and demographic factors. Results. The probability of buying medicines and dietary supplements and the household expenditures were higher in families with the disabled, individuals with multimorbidity, with self-reported poor hea...
Voprosy Gosudarstvennogo I Munitsipalnogo Upravleniya-Public Administration Issues, 2020
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing... more During the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have introduced social distancing measures to reduce social interaction between people. Th ose measures could be introduced on national, regional and local levels depending on particular country. Th ey range from advice about not leaving home (self-isolation) to strict quarantine measures. Th e choice of particular measures relies on the trade-off between preserving as many lives as possible and maintaining the economic well-being of population. In this paper, we use theoretical tools to investigate which strategies are the most benefi cial in providing social welfare. Th us, we apply the "prisoner's dilemma" to model individual decision- making process regarding social distancing. We show that the decision on whether to comply or not with the quarantine regime depends on the individual preferences, as well as the losses incurred by isolation, and the likelihood of receiving necessary and timely medical care in case of illness. We draw parallels between our fi ndings and real quarantine measures that have been applied in diff erent countries. Th eoretically, we show that universal full-scale quarantine measures (total stay-home policy) cannot be considered as the most benefi cial policy from the social welfare perspective. Instead, planning strategic incentives for diff erent homogeneous population groups is a more preferable strategy
Uploads