‘Inclusive’ health systems increase healthy life expectancy


name here
Kostas Athanasakis1
PhD, Assistant Professor *


*Asst Prof Kostas Athanasakis


1 Department of Public Health Policy, University of West Attica, 196 Alexandras Avenue, 11521, Athens, Greece


4 May 2022 Volume 22 Issue 2


RECEIVED: 13 July 2021

REVISED: 23 February 2022

ACCEPTED: 4 March 2022


Athanasakis K.  ‘Inclusive’ health systems increase healthy life expectancy. Rural and Remote Health 2022; 22: 7014.



Non-Applicable, given that the paper relies on publicly available aggregate country-specific data

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence


Introduction:  This article attempts to investigate whether inclusive health systems increase societal welfare, with the latter expressed through estimates of healthy life expectancy (HLE).
Methods:  The analysis uses publicly available data by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and explores the relationship of HLE at the age of 65 years (HLE_65) with four variables that are representative of institutional inclusivity or extractiveness of health systems.
Results:  Results indicate that HLE_65 is positively associated with healthcare system institutional inclusivity as expressed in terms of the share of public healthcare expenditure and the spending on preventive care. HLE_65 is inversely associated with the strength of extracting characteristics of the system, such as the market power of physicians and the share of specialists in the total number of physicians.
Conclusion:  In this light, the development of health policies that aim to strengthen inclusive institutions, such as the focus on prevention, financial protection and primary care, could have a significant positive impact in collective welfare and social cohesion – especially for populations in rural, remote and less developed parts of the world.


collective welfare, extractiveness, health system performance, healthy life expectancy, inclusivity.

full article:


In their seminal book Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty, Acemoglu and Robinson, in their endeavor to explain the factors that are responsible for the success – or failure – in terms of collective welfare of states, proposed a groundbreaking theory1. The key concept behind the Acemoglu and Robinson proposal is that economic prosperity of a nation is closely related to the degree of inclusiveness of its economic, political and legislative institutions. Inclusivity, a central notion in this theoretical proposal, is characterized by the strong presence of the state (‘a state with capacity2) and a broad distribution of power of decisions. Conversely, a significant decrease in potential collective welfare occurs when the institutions in a society are extractive – when they are built in such a way that they permit a closed group of people (an elite) to exercise market power and extract wealth (welfare, in a broad interpretation) from those who are not part of the elite. The general population, in that sense, are those who lose from a system with extractive mechanics (ie a system with exclusivity).

The dialectics about the role of institutions in shaping the broader social environment can provide a useful insight regarding the way that the macro-level dimensions of a society can influence the activities and behaviors in the individual (ie at the micro-level)3 and, to that end, the results in terms of collective welfare. Institutions in a society are created out of subjective human interaction but are perceived by participants as objective and stable4. In other words, institutions form the rules of the game within a society5,6, and a close inspection of these interactions between persons and institutions introduces a new approach regarding the study of social, economic and political dynamics7 in such complex systems.

Among the complex subsystems that constitute a society, the healthcare ecosystem retains a leading role. However, the examination of the role of institutions in shaping healthcare markets and individual behaviors remains less explored compared to studies in other societal systems. Discussions tend to focus mainly on the nature and evolution of institutions in health care from an organizational sociology point of view8 or, in some cases, on the relationship (and the distinction) between institutions and formal organizations in health care9, and the role of institutions in organizational change10. Newer contributions in the topic discuss the role of institutions in areas such as the system-level responses to emergency situations in health11 or the influence of institutions as moderators in health behaviors12 and in health planning13, although these veins of work are still evolving. In this view, the investigation of the effects of the characteristics of institutions on the collective health outcomes or total welfare remains an unexplored path.

The concept of inclusion, on the other hand, regarding applications in health, has been used mainly from the perspective of social rights and participation14,15, or to describe health services that are equitable, affordable and efficacious16,17. Acemoglu and Robinson depict a different view on inclusivity, where, as already noted, the state has a crucial role. This role is performed through a set of attributes of the strong presence of the state, such as the securing of access for the great majority of its citizens to a range of basic opportunities, for example education (or, by extension, health), the provision of public services and the production of public goods2. The opposite of this pluralistic organization of societal infrastructures are the extractive institutions: extractiveness thrives when there is concentration of power (political or market power) in specific groups of the population18 who, in turn, can operate in imperfect market structures, such as monopolies, oligopolies and monopolistic competition. Such arrangements, between supply and demand, typically lead to loss of total surplus – to decreases in total social welfare compared to more pluralistic forms of markets (eg perfect competition).  

In this light, the Acemoglu and Robinson theory provides a new perspective into the role of institutions in the increase and distribution of societal welfare. Taking into account that one of the pillars of the modern welfare state is its health system, this article attempts to explore, largely based on the Acemoglu and Robinson proposal – and at an expansive interpretation – whether the degree of inclusivity of a health system could be related to improved welfare. In other words, using the terminology proposed by Acemoglu and Robinson and adapting it in the health setting, the research question that this brief analysis attempts to explore is whether inclusive health systems perform better, compared to extracting systems, in terms of their outcomes in collective welfare, as the latter is expressed through healthy life expectancy.


The analysis is based on the exploration of publicly available data by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)19. Given the widely acknowledged synergistic relationship between health, welfare and economic benefit20 the analysis utilizes an indicator of population health as a proxy for collective welfare: healthy life expectancy at the age of 65 (HLE_65). HLE, in general, represents the number of expected healthy years of life for individuals at a given age21. HLE summarizes mortality and morbidity in a single summary measure of average population health22 and constitutes a key indicator of collective health status23.

The analysis explores the relationship between HLE_65 and four variables that are potentially indicative of the institutional inclusivity or exclusivity of health systems:

  • the share of public expenditure in total health expenditure (ie the share of expenditure from government/compulsory schemes in the current expenditure on health from all sources)
  • spending on collective services and, in specific, spending on preventive care, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (ie the total expenditure for prevention in each country, expressed as part of the corresponding year’s GDP)
  • market power of physicians (expressed as the concentration of physicians, ie physician density, across regions in a country, by territorial level 2 regions)
  • share of generalists in the total number of physicians in a country (measured as the total number of general practitioners to the total number of practicing physicians in a given country).

The sample of the analysis consists of all the European countries that are members of OECD. All data refer to 2018 (last available data at the time of the present analysis), apart from the third point (market power).


A stronger presence of the state, in terms of public healthcare spending, is associated with a higher HLE at age 65

A moderate (Pearson’s r=0.557) but statistically significant (p=0.003) correlation is observed between the share of public expenditure in total healthcare spending and HLE_65 (Fig1a). On average, for every 10 percentage point increase in the public share of healthcare spending, HLY_65 is expected to increase by 2.18 years.

Systems with predominantly public spending on health appear to achieve better outcomes in terms of the number of years lived in full health, after the age of 65 years. An explanation for this finding could be that systems with higher public expenditure on health appear to demonstrate higher equity in health outcomes by closing the health gap between the poor and non-poor strata of the population24 and provide better opportunities for a healthy life by reducing child and infant mortality25. The share of public health expenditure, (ie the strength of the presence of the state) is related to the level of out-of-pocket spending26 and, by extension, to protection from catastrophic health expenditure27 and from the occurrence of unmet healthcare needs28.

Higher spending on prevention is associated with a higher HLE at age 65

Expenditure on preventive care, measured as percentage of GDP, is significantly correlated with HLE_65 (r=0.490, p=0.011). A 0.1% of GDP increase in spending for prevention is associated with an addition of 1.51 years in HLE_65 (Fig1b)

The benefits of prevention are universally acknowledged. However, another aspect of prevention, and especially one of its institutional characteristics, could be a potential explanation for this effect. State-organized preventive services, such as universal screening programs, are collective services, designed to have no barriers in access, and are thus by definition inclusive.

table image Figure 1:  Strength of inclusive institutions of health systems and their effect on healthy life expectancy19. (a) Relationship between share of public expenditure in total health expenditure and HLE_65. (b) Relationship between healthcare expenditure on preventive care (as % of GDP) and HLE_65.

The market power of physicians is inversely related to collective welfare

For the approximation of market power the analysis uses the density of physicians in geographic areas and, specifically, the OECD’s estimates of physician density (physicians per 1000 population) across localities, by level 2 regions29. For each country the difference between the regions with the highest and the lowest density is estimated. We believe that this is a better demonstrator of the market structure of physicians in each country, compared to the overall physicians per capita estimates, since it indicates the areas of high or low concentration of the supply side. Our measure (ie the magnitude of the difference) shows the degree of uneven distribution and, thus, areas with strong market power of physicians. Significant market power of physicians, (ie stronger tendencies towards oligopolies/monopolies), leads to influence over prices and, thus, to an extracting mechanism that moves consumer surplus towards suppliers.

A special case is that of areas with high concentration of physicians. Although it would be expected that this could lead to competition for a market share, evidence points to the opposite; according to Dunn and Shapiro physicians in more concentrated markets charge higher service prices through being able to exercise market power30. Monopolistic behaviors may lead to less supply of services and lower efficiency of spending, especially for those populations that live in countries with high exposure to healthcare spending (extracting systems).

As shown in Figure 2a, uneven distribution of physician density is negatively correlated with HLE_65 (r=–0.458, p=0.042).

More specialists compared to generalists can lead to a loss of welfare

The share of specialists in the total population of physicians is inversely correlated (Pearson’s r=–0.575, p=0.003) to HLE_65 (Fig2b). Specifically, a 10% increase in the share of specialists is associated with a reduction in HLE_65 by 1.3 years.

A possible explanation for this trend could be dual. On the one hand, according to published studies systems with a high percentage of generalists tend to use fewer resources but at the same time achieve similar health status outcomes – thus achieving efficiency31-33. This should be combined with the fact that a stronger presence of general physicians is the basis of a stronger institutional primary care, which is less monopolistic (less extracting) and is associated with improved access, better population health and greater equity (ie inclusivity)34,35.

table image Figure 2:  Strength of extracting institutions of health systems and their effect on healthy life expectancy19. (a) Association between difference in within-country density of physicians (areas with highest – areas with lowest density of physicians per 1000 population) and HLE_65. (b) Relationship between share of specialists in total number of physicians and HLE_65.


Health systems are core social institutions functioning ‘at the interface between people and the structures of power that shape their broader society’36. In this sense, equity in access to health services and efficiency of spending are prerequisites of both a democratic society37 and an increase in collective welfare.

This analysis attempted to examine whether the inclusivity or exclusivity of a health system, with both terms based on a broad interpretation of the theory of Acemoglu and Robinson in the case of health, affects collective welfare, as proxied by estimates of HLE at the age of 65. In doing so, the analysis uses publicly available data and finds positive correlations between HLE_65 and the strength of the presence of the state in terms of financing the health system and the investment in collective actions such as preventive care. On the contrary, loss of welfare is associated with market power of physicians and the overwhelming presence of specialty care compared to general physicians/primary care.

Certainly, correlation does not equal causality. Also, the issue of the production function of a health system, in terms of its analytical scope, remains a subject of debate, with promising contributions coming from the application of standard economics methods, such as the use of the Cobb–Douglas production function, in the field of the production of health38. Nevertheless, the findings of this analysis can be of high importance to the health and welfare of populations living in remote and rural areas; the uneven allocation of physicians, which is typically expressed with lower densities in rural areas39,40, can lead to lower healthy life expectancy at the macro level, as shown from the findings of this study. In the same context, the absence of investment in collective actions (such as population-based organized screening programs) is associated, based on the macroscopic findings of this study, with reduced health life expectancy (on a country basis), which can disproportionately affect rural populations41. This effect is intensified when the population is exposed in private spending for screening42, in line with the findings of the study that demonstrate that when the public presence in healthcare expenditure is stronger (ie private spending is lower), the results in collective welfare are better.


The organizational characteristics of institutions in a society can play a major part in terms of their results on collective welfare: according to Acemoglu and Robinson, inclusive institutions, characterized by a democratic expression of the power of decisions and a strong presence of the state, appear to increase collective welfare, compared to extractive institutions (ie systems where the power of decision-making is limited to the hands of closed groups of people). The results of the present analysis indicate that this approach can be applicable in health as well, given that systems with inclusive characteristics appear to perform better in terms of health outcomes, as expressed through measurements of healthy life expectancy. In this sense, policies that aim to strengthen the inclusivity of a healthcare system, such as the focus on prevention – especially in populations that face geographical, time or cost barriers in access to health services, the focus on financial protection and the avoidance of catastrophic expenditure on health, and the strengthening of public health and primary care – could have a significant positive effect in collective welfare and social cohesion, especially for populations in less developed parts of the world.


Thanks to Dr Eleftheria Karampli and Dr Michael Igoumenidis for their insightful comments during the drafting of this manuscript.


1 Acemoglu D, Robinson J. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. 1st edn. New York: Crown, 2012. DOI link
2 Acemoglu D, Robinson J. Paths to inclusive political institutions. In: J Eloranta, E Golson, A Markevich, N Wolf (Eds). Economic history of warfare and state formation. New York, NY: Springer, 2016; 3-50.
3 Oliver C. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 1991; 16(1): 145-179. DOI link
4 Scott WR. Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2014. DOI link
5 North DC. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1991; 5(1): 97-112. DOI link
6 Kuijpers F, Eijdenberg EL. Showcasing entrepreneurs' responses to severe drought: qualitative findings from Cape Town, South Africa. In: T Chaiechi (Ed.). Economic effects of natural disasters. London: Academic Press, 2021; 131-146. DOI link
7 DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Economics meets sociology in strategic management. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2000. DOI link
8 Scott W.R, Ruef M, Mendel PJ, Caronna CA. Institutional change and healthcare organizations: from professional dominance to managed care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
9 Pedersen KM. A new paradigm for health economics? Nordic Journal of Health Economics 2012; 1(1): 17-27. DOI link
10 Macfarlane F, Barton-Sweeney C, Woodard F, Greenhalgh T. Achieving and sustaining profound institutional change in healthcare: case study using neo-institutional theory. Social Science and Medicine 2013; 80: 10-18. DOI link, PMid:23415586
11 Loi KI, Lei WS, Lourenço F. Understanding the reactions of government and gaming concessionaires on COVID-19 through the neo-institutional theory – the case of Macao. International Journal of Hospital Management 2021; 94: 102755. DOI link, PMid:33162641
12 Keren F, Siddiquei AN, Anwar MA, Asmi F, Ye Q. What explains natives and sojourners preventive health behavior in a pandemic: role of media and scientific self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology 2021; 12: 664399. DOI link, PMid:34267704
13 Javanparast S, Freeman T, Baum F, Labonté R, Ziersch A, Mackean T, et al. How institutional forces, ideas and actors shaped population health planning in Australian regional primary health care organisations. BMC Public Health 2018; 18(1): 383. DOI link, PMid:29558903
14 MacLachlan M, Amin M, Mannan H, El Tayeb S, Bedri N, Swartz L, et al. Inclusion and human rights in health policies: comparative and benchmarking analysis of 51 policies from Malawi, Sudan, South Africa and Namibia. PLoS One 2012; 7(5): e35864. DOI link, PMid:22649488
15 O'Donnell P, O'Donovan D, Elmusharaf K. Social inclusion in the Irish health context: policy and stakeholder mapping. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2020; 189(1): 11-26. DOI link, PMid:31302862
16 Maclachlan M, Khasnabis C, Mannan H. Inclusive health. Tropical Medicine and International Health 2012; 17: 139-141. DOI link, PMid:21895893
17 Adebisi YA, Ekpenyong A, Ntacyabukura B, Lowe M, Jimoh ND, Abdulkareem TO, et al. COVID-19 highlights the need for inclusive responses to public health emergencies in Africa. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2020; 104(2): 449-452. DOI link, PMid:33331263
18 Tadei F. Measuring extractive institutions: colonial trade and price gaps in French Africa. European Review of Economic History 2020; 24(1): 1-23.
19 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 'Data warehouse'. Available: web link (Accessed 6 March 2022). DOI link
20 Bloom DE, Canning D. The health and wealth of nations. Science 2000; 287: 1207-1209. DOI link, PMid:10712155
21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific healthy life expectancy at age 65 years – United States, 2007–2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 2013; 62(28): 561.
22 Mathers CD, Sadana R, Salomon JA, Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Healthy life expectancy in 191 countries, 1999. The Lancet 2001; 357(9269): 1685-1691. DOI link
23 Murray CJ, Salomon JA, Mathers C. A critical examination of summary measures of population health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2000; 78(8): 981-994.
24 Gupta S, Verhoeven M, Tiogson E. Public spending on health care and the poor, IMF working paper 01/127. SSRN 2006; 2 February. DOI link
25 Gupta S, Verhoeven M, Tiongson E. Does higher government spending buy better results in education and health care? Working paper 99/21. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 1999. DOI link
26 Grima S, Spiteri JV, Jakovljevic M, Camilleri C, Buttigieg SC. High out-of-pocket health spending in countries with a Mediterranean connection. Frontiers in Public Health 2018; 6: 145. DOI link, PMid:29876340
27 Baeten R, Spasova S, Vanhercke B, Coster S. Inequalities in access to healthcare. A study of national policies. Brussels: European Social Policy Network (ESPN), European Commission, 2018.
28 Chaupain-Guillot S, Guillot O. Health system characteristics and unmet care needs in Europe: an analysis based on EU-SILC data. European Journal of Health Economics 2015; 16: 781-796. DOI link, PMid:25186072
29 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health At a Glance 2017: OECD indicators. 2017. Available: web link (Accessed 20 February 2022).
30 Dunn A, Shapiro AH. Do physicians possess market power? The Journal of Law and Economics 2014; 57: 159-193. DOI link
31 Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, Manning W, Rogers W, Kravitz RL et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1992; 267(12): 1624-1630. DOI link, PMid:1542172
32 Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1995; 274(18): 1436-1444. DOI link, PMid:7474189
33 Stange KC, Ferrer RL. The paradox of primary care. Annals of Family Medicine 2009; 7(4): 293-299. DOI link, PMid:19597165
34 Starfield B, Shi LY, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Quarterly 2005; 83(3): 457-502. DOI link, PMid:16202000
35 Starfield B. Primary care and equity in health: the importance to effectiveness and equity of responsiveness to people's needs. Humanity & Society 2009; 33: 56-73. DOI link
36 Freedman LP. Achieving the MDGs: health systems as core social institutions. Development 2005; 48(1): 19-21. DOI link
37 Mackintosh M. Do health care systems contribute to inequalities? In: DA Leon, G Walt (Eds). Poverty, inequality and health: an international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
38 Wichmann B, Wichmann R. Nonparametric estimation of a primary care production function in urban Brazil. Health Economics Review 2020; 10: 37. DOI link, PMid:33247784
39 Mollahaliloglu S, Aydogan Ü, Kosdak M, Öncül HG, Dilmen U. Physician scarcity in underdeveloped areas of Turkey: what do new graduate physicians think? Rural and Remote Health 2012; 12: 2067. DOI link, PMid:23167447
40 Theodorakis P, Mantzavinis G. Inequalities in the distribution of rural primary care physicians in two remote neighboring prefectures of Greece and Albania. Rural and Remote Health 2005; 5: 457. DOI link
41 Rosenwasser LA, McCall-Hosenfeld J, Weisman CS, Hillemeier MM, Perry AN, Chuang C. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among women in rural central Pennsylvania: primary care physicians' perspective. Rural and Remote Health 2013; 13: 2504. DOI link, PMid:24099635
42 Wang H, Roy S, Kim J, Farazi PA, Siahpush M, Su D. Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review. Rural and Remote Health 2019; 19: 5181. DOI link