Abstract: We investigated the relationship between living in a household that receives the Brazilian Income Transfer Program (Bolsa Família, in Portuguese - BF), a Brazilian conditional cash transfer program, and aspects of health and whether these relationships are heterogeneous across the 27 Brazilian states. According to data from the 2013 Brazilian National Health Survey, 18% of households participated in BF. Among households with household per capita income below BRL 500, many aspects of health differed between people living in BF and non-BF houses. For example, BF households were less likely to have medical coverage but more likely to have visited the doctor in the last 12 months as well as being more likely to smoke and less likely to do exercise. They ate nearly one less serving of fruits and vegetables a week but were less likely to substitute junk food for a meal. They reported worse self-rated health but did not differ importantly on reporting illnesses. Moderate amounts of heterogeneity in the difference in health characteristics were found for some variables. For instance, medical coverage had an I2 value of 40.7% and the difference in coverage between BF and non-BF households ranged from -0.09 to -0.03. Some illnesses differed qualitatively across states such as high cholesterol, asthma and arthritis. This paper is the first to outline the health profile of people living in households receiving payments from a cash transfer program. It is also the first to find geographic heterogeneity in the relationship between a cash transfer program and health variables. These results suggest the possibility that the effect of cash transfer programs may differ based on the population on which it is implemented.
OBJETIVO Descrever a focalização e a cobertura do Programa Bolsa Família nas famílias de crianças que fazem parte da coorte de nascimentos de Pelotas, 2004 (coorte de 2004). MÉTODOS Os dados utilizados derivam da integração de informações da coorte de 2004 e do Cadastro Único para Programas Sociais do Governo Federal, no período de 2004 a 2010. Estimamos a cobertura do programa (percentual de elegíveis que recebem bolsa) e seu foco (proporção de elegíveis entre os beneficiários). Utilizamos dois critérios para definir elegibilidade: a renda familiar per capita relatada nas avaliações da coorte e pertencer aos 20,0% mais pobres pela classificação do Indicador Econômico Nacional, um índice de bens. RESULTADOS Entre 2004 e 2010, a proporção de famílias beneficiárias da coorte passou de 11% para 34%. Houve aumento em todos os quintis de riqueza. Em 2010, por quintis de renda e Indicador Econômico Nacional, 62%-72% das famílias eram beneficiárias entre os 20% mais pobres, 2%-5% entre os 20% mais ricos, e cerca de 30% das famílias do quintil intermediário. Pelo critério de renda familiar, excluindo-se o valor do benefício do programa, 29% das famílias eram elegíveis em 2004 e 16% em 2010. Pelo mesmo critério, a cobertura do programa passou de 43% em 2004 para 71% em 2010. No mesmo período, pelo critério de riqueza (Indicador Econômico Nacional), a cobertura passou de 29% para 63%. A focalização do programa caiu de 78% em 2004 para 32% em 2010 de acordo com a renda e permaneceu constante (37%) de acordo com o Indicador Econômico Nacional. CONCLUSÕES Entre as famílias da coorte de 2004, observa-se aumento importante da cobertura do programa, de seu início até 2010, quando ficou perto de 70%. O foco do programa ficou abaixo de 40% em 2010, indicando que mais da metade dos beneficiários não pertencem à população alvo. ; OBJECTIVE To describe the focalization and coverage of Bolsa Família Program among the families of children who are part of the 2004 Pelotas birth cohort (2004 cohort). METHODS The data used derives from the integration of information from the 2004 cohort and the Cadastro Único para Programas Sociais do Governo Federal (CadÚnico – Register for Social Programs of the Federal Government), in the 2004-2010 period. We estimated the program coverage (percentage of eligible people who receive the benefit) and its focus (proportion of eligible people among the beneficiaries). We used two criteria to define eligibility: the per capita household income reported in the cohort follow-ups and belonging to the 20% poorest families according to the National Economic Indicator (IEN), an asset index. RESULTS Between 2004 and 2010, the proportion of families in the cohort that received the benefit increased from 11% to 34%. We observed an increase in all wealth quintiles. In 2010, by income and wealth quintiles (IEN), 62%-72% of the families were beneficiaries among the 20% poorest people, 2%-5% among the 20% richest people, and about 30% of families of the intermediate quintile. According to household income (minus the benefit) 29% of families were eligible in 2004 and 16% in 2010. By the same criteria, the coverage of the program increased from 43% in 2004 to 71% in 2010. In the same period, by the wealth criterion (IEN), coverage increased from 29% to 63%. The focalization of the program decreased from 78% in 2004 to 32% in 2010 according to income, and remained constant (37%) according to the IEN. CONCLUSIONS Among the families of the 2004 cohort, there was a significant increase in the program coverage, from its inception until 2010, when it was near 70%. The focus of the program was below 40% in 2010, indicating that more than half of the beneficiaries did not belong to the target population.
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the focalization and coverage of Bolsa Família Program among the families of children who are part of the 2004 Pelotas birth cohort (2004 cohort). METHODS The data used derives from the integration of information from the 2004 cohort and the Cadastro Único para Programas Sociais do Governo Federal (CadÚnico – Register for Social Programs of the Federal Government), in the 2004-2010 period. We estimated the program coverage (percentage of eligible people who receive the benefit) and its focus (proportion of eligible people among the beneficiaries). We used two criteria to define eligibility: the per capita household income reported in the cohort follow-ups and belonging to the 20% poorest families according to the National Economic Indicator (IEN), an asset index. RESULTS Between 2004 and 2010, the proportion of families in the cohort that received the benefit increased from 11% to 34%. We observed an increase in all wealth quintiles. In 2010, by income and wealth quintiles (IEN), 62%-72% of the families were beneficiaries among the 20% poorest people, 2%-5% among the 20% richest people, and about 30% of families of the intermediate quintile. According to household income (minus the benefit) 29% of families were eligible in 2004 and 16% in 2010. By the same criteria, the coverage of the program increased from 43% in 2004 to 71% in 2010. In the same period, by the wealth criterion (IEN), coverage increased from 29% to 63%. The focalization of the program decreased from 78% in 2004 to 32% in 2010 according to income, and remained constant (37%) according to the IEN. CONCLUSIONS Among the families of the 2004 cohort, there was a significant increase in the program coverage, from its inception until 2010, when it was near 70%. The focus of the program was below 40% in 2010, indicating that more than half of the beneficiaries did not belong to the target population.
POLICY POINTS: Historically, reforms that have increased the duration of job‐protected paid parental leave have improved women's economic outcomes. By targeting the period around childbirth, access to paid parental leave also appears to reduce rates of infant mortality, with breastfeeding representing one potential mechanism. The provision of more generous paid leave entitlements in countries that offer unpaid or short durations of paid leave could help families strike a balance between the competing demands of earning income and attending to personal and family well‐being. CONTEXT: Policies legislating paid leave from work for new parents, and to attend to individual and family illness, are common across Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries. However, there exists no comprehensive review of their potential impacts on economic, social, and health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the peer‐reviewed literature on paid leave and socioeconomic and health outcomes. We reviewed 5,538 abstracts and selected 85 published papers on the impact of parental leave policies, 22 papers on the impact of medical leave policies, and 2 papers that evaluated both types of policies. We synthesized the main findings through a narrative description; a meta‐analysis was precluded by heterogeneity in policy attributes, policy changes, outcomes, and study designs. FINDINGS: We were able to draw several conclusions about the impact of parental leave policies. First, extensions in the duration of paid parental leave to between 6 and 12 months were accompanied by attendant increases in leave‐taking and longer durations of leave. Second, there was little evidence that extending the duration of paid leave had negative employment or economic consequences. Third, unpaid leave does not appear to confer the same benefits as paid leave. Fourth, from a population health perspective, increases in paid parental leave were consistently associated with better infant and child health, particularly ...
