Article

Universal health insurance and equity in primary care and specialist office visits: a population-based study.

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.57). 09/2009; 7(5):396-405. DOI: 10.1370/afm.994
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Universal coverage of physician services should serve to reduce socioeconomic disparities in care, but the degree to which a reduction occurs is unclear. We examined equity in use of physician services in Ontario, Canada, after controlling for health status using both self-reported and diagnosis-based measures.
Ontario respondents to the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were linked with physician claim files in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Educational attainment and income were based on self-report. The CCHS was used for self-reported health status and Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups was used for diagnosis-based health status.
After adjustment, higher education was not associated with at least 1 primary care visit (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.24), but it was inversely associated with frequent visits (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.88). Higher education was directly associated with at least 1 specialist visit (OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with frequent specialist visits (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39), and with bypassing primary care to reach specialists (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.44). The largest inequities by education were found for dermatology and ophthalmology. Income was not independently associated with inequities in physician contact or frequency of visits.
After adjusting for health status, we found equity in contact with primary care for educational attainment but inequity in specialist contact, frequent visits, and bypassing primary care. In this setting, universal health insurance appears to be successful in achieving income equity in physician visits. This strategy alone does not eliminate education-related gradients in specialist care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
98 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Even in most egalitarian societies, disparities in care exist to the disadvantage of some people with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders and related disability. These situations translate into inequality in health and health outcomes. The goal of this chapter is to review concepts and determinants associated with health inequity, and the effect of interventions to minimize their impact. Health inequities are avoidable, unnecessary, unfair and unjust. Inequities can occur across the health care continuum, from primary and secondary prevention to diagnosis and treatment. There are many ways to define and identify inequities, according for instance to ethical, philosophical, epidemiological, sociological, economic, or public health points of view. These complementary views can be applied to set a framework of analysis, identify determinants and suggest targets of action against inequity. Most determinants of inequity in MSK disorders are similar to those in the general population and other chronic diseases. People may be exposed to inequity as a result of policies and rules set by the health care system, individuals' demographic characteristics (e.g., education level), or some behavior of health professionals and of patients. Osteoarthritis (OA) represents a typical chronic MSK condition. The PROGRESS-Plus framework is useful for identifying the important role that place of residence, race and ethnicity, occupation, gender, education, socioeconomic status, social capital and networks, age, disability and sexual orientation may have in creating or maintaining inequities in this disease. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a consideration of international data led to the conclusion that not all RA patients who needed biologic therapy had access to it. The disparity in care was due partly to policies of a country and a health care system, or economic conditions. We conclude this chapter by discussing examples of interventions designed for reducing health inequity.
    Bailli&egrave re s Best Practice and Research in Clinical Rheumatology 09/2014; 28(3). DOI:10.1016/j.berh.2014.08.001 · 3.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Cost containment policies and the need to satisfy patients’ health needs and care expectations provide major challenges to healthcare systems. Identification of homogeneous groups in terms of healthcare utilisation could lead to a better understanding of how to adjust healthcare provision to society and patient needs. Methods This study used data from the third wave of the SIRS cohort study, a representative, population-based, socio-epidemiological study set up in 2005 in the Paris metropolitan area, France. The data were analysed using a cross-sectional design. In 2010, 3000 individuals were interviewed in their homes. Non-conventional multivariate clustering techniques were used to determine homogeneous user groups in data. Multinomial models assessed a wide range of potential associations between user characteristics and their pattern of healthcare utilisation. Results We identified four distinct patterns of healthcare use. Patterns of consumption and the socio-demographic characteristics of users differed qualitatively and quantitatively between these four profiles. Extensive and intensive use by older, wealthier and unhealthier people contrasted with narrow and parsimonious use by younger, socially deprived people and immigrants. Rare, intermittent use by young healthy men contrasted with regular targeted use by healthy and wealthy women. Conclusion The use of an original technique of massive multivariate analysis allowed us to characterise different types of healthcare users, both in terms of resource utilisation and socio-demographic variables. This method would merit replication in different populations and healthcare systems.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9:e115064. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115064 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To improve financial protection against catastrophic illness, the Korean government expanded the benefit coverage of the National Health Insurance (NHI) for cancer patients in 2005. This paper examined whether the policy has reduced income-inequality in the use of tertiary care hospitals. We evaluated the effect of the policy on income-inequalities in outpatient visits and inpatient admissions to tertiary care hospitals, based on triple difference estimators. Using nationwide claims data of the NHI from 2002 to 2010, we compared cancer patients as a treatment group with liver disease and cardio-cerebrovascular disease as control groups and the lower-income with the highest-income group. Before the introduction of the policy, lower-income cancer patients utilized less inpatient and outpatient services in tertiary care hospitals than high-income patients did. After the benefit coverage was expanded, while the incidence and total number of inpatient admissions to tertiary care hospitals increased among cancer patients compared with liver diseases, lower-income cancer patients experienced a greater increase than those of higher-income did compared with both diseases. The use of outpatient services increased more in cancer patients than those of both diseases; however, the gap between the highest- and the lowest-income rarely decreased, except the incidence of visits when compared to liver disease. Our findings indicated that the expanded NHI benefits coverage partially improved income-related inequalities in inpatient admissions to tertiary-care hospital, but not in outpatient visits. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Health Policy 10/2014; 118(3). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.005 · 1.73 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from