Disability in two health care systems: access, quality, satisfaction, and physician contacts among working-age Canadians and Americans with disabilities

BackgroundAn overarching question in health policy concerns whether the current mix of public and private health coverage in the United States can be, in one way or another, expanded to include all persons as it does in Canada. As typically high-end consumers of health care services, people with disabilities are key stakeholders to consider in this debate. The risk is that ways to cover more persons may be found only by sacrificing the quantity or quality of care on which people with disabilities so frequently depend. Yet, despite the many comparisons made of Canadian and U.S. health care, few focus directly on the needs of people with disabilities or the uninsured among them in the United States. This research is intended to address these gaps. Given this background, we compare the health care experiences of working-age uninsured and insured Americans with Canadian individuals (all of whom, insured) with a special focus on disability. Two questions for research guide our inquiry: (1) On the basis of disability severity level and health insurance status, are there differences in self-reported measures of access, utilization, satisfaction with, or quality of health care services within or between the United States and Canada? (2) After controlling covariates, when examining each level of disability severity, are there any significant differences in these measures of access, utilization, satisfaction, or quality between U.S. insured and Canadian persons?MethodsCross-sectional data from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (JCUSH) are analyzed with particular attention to disability severity level (none, nonsevere, or severe) among three analytic groups of working age residents (insured Americans, uninsured Americans, and Canadians). Differences in three measures of access, one measure of satisfaction with care, one quality of care measure, and two varieties of physician contacts are compared. Multivariate methods are then used to compare the healthcare experiences of insured U.S. and Canadian persons on the basis of disability level while controlling covariates.ResultsIn covariate-controlled comparisons of insured Americans and Canadians, we find that people with disabilities report higher levels of unmet need than do their counterparts without disabilities, with no difference in this result between the nations. Our findings on access to medications and satisfaction with care among people with disabilities are similar, suggesting worse outcomes for people with disabilities, but few differences between insured U.S. and Canadian individuals. Generally, we find higher percentages who report having a regular physician, and higher contact rates with physicians among people with disabilities than among people without them in both countries. We find no evidence that total physician contacts are restricted in Canada relative to insured Americans at any of the disability levels. Yet we do find that quality ratings are lower among Canadian respondents than among insured Americans. However, bivariate estimates on access, satisfaction, quality, and physician contacts reveal particularly poor outcomes for uninsured persons with severe disabilities in the United States. For example, almost 40% do not report having a regular physician, 65% report that they need at least one medication that they cannot afford, 45% are not satisfied with the way their care is provided, 40% rate the overall quality of their care as fair or poor, and significant reductions in contacts with two types of physicians are evident within this group as well.ConclusionBased on these results, we find evidence of disparities in health care on the basis of disability in both Canada and the United States. However, despite the fact that Canada makes health insurance coverage available to all residents, we find few significant reductions in access, satisfaction or physician contacts among Canadians with disabilities relative to their insured American counterparts. These results place a spotlight on the experiences of uninsured persons with disabilities in America and suggest further avenues for research.     

Comparing social determinants of self-rated health across the United States and Canada

A large body of research shows that social determinants of health have significant impact on the health of Canadians and Americans. Yet, very few studies have directly compared the extent to which social factors are associated with health in the two countries, in large part due to the historical lack of comparable cross-national data. This study examines differences in the effect of a wide-range of social determinants on self-rated health across the two populations using data explicitly designed to facilitate comparative health research-Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health. The results show that: 1) sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors have substantial effects on health in each country, though the size of the effects tends to differ-gender, nativity, and race are stronger predictors of health among Americans while the effects of age and marital status on health are much larger in Canada; the income gradient in health is steeper in Canada whereas the education gradient is steeper in the U.S.; 2) Socioeconomic status (SES) mediates or links sociodemographic variables with health in both countries-the observed associations between gender, race, age, and marital status and health are considerably weakened after adjusting for SES; 3) psychosocial, behavioural risk and health care access factors are very strong determinants of health in each country, however being severely/morbidly obese, a smoker, or having low life satisfaction has a stronger negative effect on the health of Americans, while being physically inactive or having unmet health care needs has a stronger effect among Canadians; and 4) risk and health care access factors together play a relatively minor role in linking social structural factors to health. Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of social determinants of health in both countries, and that some determinants matter more in one country relative to the other.     

Access to care, health status, and health disparities in the United States and Canada: results of a cross-national population-based survey

Objectives. We compared health status, access to care, and utilization of medical services in the United States and Canada and compared disparities according to race, income, and immigrant status.

Methods. We analyzed population-based data on 3505 Canadian and 5183 US adults from the Joint Canada/US Survey of Health. Controlling for gender, age, income, race, and immigrant status, we used logistic regression to analyze country as a predictor of access to care, quality of care, and satisfaction with care and as a predictor of disparities in these measures.

Results. In multivariate analyses, US respondents (compared with Canadians) were less likely to have a regular doctor, more likely to have unmet health needs, and more likely to forgo needed medicines. Disparities on the basis of race, income, and immigrant status were present in both countries but were more extreme in the United States.

Conclusions. United States residents are less able to access care than are Canadians. Universal coverage appears to reduce most disparities in access to care.

     

Physician use in Ontario and the United States: The impact of socioeconomic status and health status.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared physician use in Ontario and the midwestern and northeastern United States for persons of different socioeconomic status and health status. The distribution of health problems associated with the most recent physician visit also was compared. METHODS: The design of the study was cross sectional; data derived from the 1990 Ontario Health Survey and the 1990 US National Health Interview Survey were used in analyses. RESULTS: Overall, persons in Ontario averaged 19% more visits than US residents, but differences varied markedly across income and health status. At each level of health status, low- income Canadians had 25% to 33% more visits than their US counterparts. However, among higher income persons, those in excellent or very good health had 22% more visits than Americans, while those in good, fair, or poor health had 10% fewer visits than Americans. Higher visit rates in Ontario were not associated with a greater prevalence of low- priority visits. CONCLUSIONS: Under the Canadian single- payer system, medical care in Ontario has been redistributed to low-income persons and the elderly. Compared with the United States, there has been a lower intensity of medical care for the sick higher income population.     

The role of health insurance in explaining immigrant versus non-immigrant disparities in access to health care: Comparing the United States to Canada

Using a cross-national comparative approach, we examined the influence of health insurance on U.S. immigrant versus non-immigrant disparities in access to primary health care. With data from the 2002/2003 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, we gathered evidence using three approaches: 1) we compared health care access among insured and uninsured immigrants and non-immigrants within the U.S.; 2) we contrasted these results with health care access disparities between immigrants and non-immigrants in Canada, a country with universal health care; and 3) we conducted a novel direct comparison of health care access among insured and uninsured U.S. immigrants with Canadian immigrants (all of whom are insured). Outcomes investigated were self-reported unmet medical needs and lack of a regular doctor. Logistic regression models controlled for age, sex, nonwhite status, marital status, education, employment, and self-rated health. In the U.S., odds of unmet medical needs of insured immigrants were similar to those of insured non-immigrants but far greater for uninsured immigrants. The effect of health insurance was even more striking for lack of regular doctor. Within Canada, disparities between immigrants and non-immigrants were similar in magnitude to disparities seen among insured Americans. For both outcomes, direct comparisons of U.S. and Canada revealed significant differences between uninsured American immigrants and Canadian immigrants, but not between insured Americans and Canadians, stratified by nativity. Findings suggest health care insurance is a critical cause of differences between immigrants and non-immigrants in access to primary care, lending robust support for the expansion of health insurance coverage in the U.S. This study also highlights the usefulness of cross-national comparisons for establishing alternative counterfactuals in studies of disparities in health and health care.     

Comparing population health in the United States and Canada

Background  

The objective of the paper is to compare population health in the United States (US) and Canada. Although the two countries are very similar in many ways, there are potentially important differences in the levels of social and economic inequality and the organization and financing of and access to health care in the two countries.     

The relationship between literacy and health

In non-industrialized countries, populations with the lowest literacy rates have the poorest health status. In the United States, however, there is no published research on whether illiteracy, independently of other sociodemographic factors, is related to health status. There are numerous plausible mechanisms by which such a relationship could occur. For example, published reports indicate that most information handouts, consent forms, and other materials for patients are written at reading levels too difficult for most American adults. These and other findings may have important implications in the health care of underserved populations. Research is needed to determine the health effects of impaired literacy skills among Americans, and to develop non-literacy-dependent methods for providing patient education, obtaining informed consent, and administering diagnostic tests.     

Health care access in three nations: Canada, insured America, and uninsured America.

This analysis provides new statistics for one of the oldest and fiercest debates in American health policy: whose residents have better access to health care, the United States' or Canada's? Data from the 2002-2003 Joint Canada U.S. Survey of Health show that, despite major differences in their health systems, most Canadians and Americans get the care they need. However, one group of Americans is much more likely to report serious access barriers--the uninsured. About one-third of currently or recently uninsured Americans, aged 18 to 64, said they could not get needed health care (over three times the rate of insured Americans or Canadians). Compared with Canadians and insured Americans, the uninsured are less likely to use hospital or physician services, and those who do are less satisfied with the care they receive. They are also less likely to purchase prescribed medications, due to cost. From a consumer perspective, the most salient feature of the Canadian system is its universality. In contrast, insured Americans under age 65 are at risk of losing their insurance and facing substantial access barriers.     

Mortality of white Americans, African Americans, and Canadians: the causes and consequences for health of welfare state institutions and policies

The life expectancy of African Americans has been substantially lower than that of white Americans for as long as records are available. The life expectancy of all Americans has been lower than that of all Canadians since the beginning of the 20th century. Until the 1970s this disparity was the result of the low life expectancy of African Americans. Since then, the life expectancy of white Americans has not improved as much as that of all Canadians. This article discusses two issues: racial disparities in the United States, and the difference in life expectancy between all Canadians and white Americans. Each country's political culture and institutions have shaped these differences, especially national health insurance in Canada and its absence in the United States. The American welfare state has contributed to and explains these differences.     

Who administers? Who cares? Medical administrative and clinical employment in the United States and Canada.

OBJECTIVES. We compared US and Canadian health administration costs using national medical care employment data for both countries. METHODS. Data from census surveys on hospital, nursing home, and outpatient employment in the United States (1968 to 1993) and Canada (1971 and 1986) were analyzed. RESULTS. Between 1968 and 1993, US medical care employment grew from 3.976 to 10.308 million full-time equivalents. Administration grew from 0.719 to 2.792 million full-time equivalents, or from 18.1% to 27.1% of the total employment. In 1986, the United States deployed 33,666 health care full-time equivalent personnel per million population, and Canada deployed 31,529. The US excess was all administrative; Canada employed more clinical personnel, especially registered nurses. Between 1971 and 1986, hospital employment per capita grew 29% in the United States (mostly because of administrative growth) and fell 14% in Canada. In 1986, Canadian hospitals still employed more clinical staff per million. Outpatient employment was larger and grew faster in the United States. Per capita nursing home employment was substantially higher in Canada. CONCLUSIONS. If US hospitals and outpatient facilities adopted Canada's staffing patterns, 1,407,000 fewer managers and clerks would be necessary. Despite lower medical spending, Canadians receive slightly more nursing and other clinical care than Americans, as measured by labor inputs.     

Socioeconomic status and health-related quality of life among elderly people: results from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health

The objective of this study was to assess the independent effect of income on health-related quality of life (HRQL) among older adults in Canada and the United States. Data were obtained from the 2002-2003 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health. The sample consisted of 755 Canadians and 1,151 Americans aged 65 years or older. HRQL was measured with the multidimensional Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). The results indicated that in the elderly population, HRQL was significantly associated with household income in the United States but not in Canada, controlling for sociodemographic and health indicators. Various explanations for the positive linear relationship between HRQL and income in the elderly population are discussed, including the roles of access to health care and socioeconomic inequalities in the United States and Canada.     

Toward higher-performance health systems: adults' health care experiences in seven countries, 2007

This 2007 survey compares adults' health care experiences in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In all countries, the study finds that having a "medical home" that is accessible and helps coordinate care is associated with significantly more positive experiences. There were wide country differences in access, after-hours care, and coordination but also areas of shared concern. Patient-reported errors were high for those seeing multiple doctors or having multiple chronic illnesses. The United States stands out for cost-related access barriers and less-efficient care.     

Reaching out to those in need: the case for community health science.

The present health care delivery model in the United States does not work; it perpetuates unequal access to care, favors treatment over prevention, and contributes to persistent health disparities and lack of insurance. The vast majority of those who suffer from preventable diseases and health disparities, and who are at greatest risk of not having insurance, are minorities (Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans) and those of lower socioeconomic status. Because the nation's poor are most affected by built-in inequities in the health care system and because they have little political power, policy makers have been able to ignore their responsibility to this group. Family medicine leaders have an opportunity to integrate community health science into their academic departments and throughout the specialty in a way that might improve health care for the underserved. The specialty could adapt existing structures to better educate and involve students, residents, and faculty in community health. Family medicine can also involve community practices and respond to community needs through practice based research networks and community based participatory research models. It may also be possible to coordinate the community activities of family medicine organizations to be more responsive to the health crisis of those in need. More emphasis on community health science is consistent with family medicine's roots in social reform, and its historical and philosophical commitment to the principle of uninhibited access to medical care for the underserved.     

Comparing the Canadian and US systems of health care in an era of health care reform

The purpose of this article is to provide an informed comparison of health care in the United States and Canada along multiple dimensions. Specifically this article looks at coverage, access, cost, health outcomes, satisfaction, and underlying ideology. Canada fares better than the United States with regard to coverage, cost, and health outcomes. While overall access is better in Canada, patients are sometimes required to endure longer wait times than in the United States. Reports of satisfaction levels vary across studies, but most evidence points toward comparable levels of satisfaction in Canada and the United States. Strong ideological differences underlie the Canadian and American systems, making the acceptance and implementation of certain reforms difficult. The potential impact of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as well as recent Canadian health care reforms on coverage, access, cost, and health outcomes are also discussed.     

Racial and spatial relations as fundamental determinants of health in Detroit

African Americans in the United States have a higher than average risk of morbidity and mortality, despite declining mortality rates for many causes of death for the general population. This article examines race-based residential segregation as a fundamental cause of racial disparities, shaping differences in exposure to, and experiences of, diseases and risk factors. The spatial distribution of racial groups, specifically the residential segregation of African Americans in aging urban areas, contributes to disparities in health by influencing access to economic, social, and physical resources essential to health. Using the Detroit metropolitan area as a case study, this article looks at the influences of the distribution of African American and white residents on access to these resources and discusses the implications for urban policies to reduce racial disparities in health status.     

International perspectives on the health care crisis in the United States

The American health care system is confronting a crisis: one consisting of severe problems of cost and access, and the other consisting of significant qualitative changes in structure, systemic behavior and operation. Some of these factors may be understood better in comparison with how systems in other nations have responded to similar problems. The United States had adopted solutions which are significantly different from those of other countries, including more limited government involvement in health care and planning, and the development of corporatized medicine. These solutions pose significant ethical and operational problems.     

Family structure, socioeconomic status, and access to health care for children

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that among children of lower socioeconomic status (SES), children of single mothers would have relatively worse access to care than children in two-parent families, but there would be no access difference by family structure among children in higher SES families. DATA SOURCES: The National Health Interview Surveys of 1993-95, including 63,054 children. STUDY DESIGN: Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between the child's family structure (single-mother or two-parent family) and three measures of health care access and utilization: having no physician visits in the past year, having no usual source of health care, and having unmet health care needs. To examine how these relationships varied at different levels of SES, the models were stratified on maternal education level as the SES variable. The stratified models adjusted for maternal employment, child's health status, race and ethnicity, and child's age. Models were fit to examine the additional effects of health insurance coverage on the relationships between family structure, access to care, and SES. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Children of single mothers, compared with children living with two parents, were as likely to have had no physician visit in the past year; were slightly more likely to have no usual source of health care; and were more likely to have an unmet health care need. These relationships differed by mother's education. As expected, children of single mothers had similar access to care as children in two-parent families at high levels of maternal education, for the access measures of no physician visits in the past year and no usual source of care. However, at low levels of maternal education, children of single mothers appeared to have better access to care than children in two-parent families. Once health insurance was added to adjusted models, there was no significant socioeconomic variation in the relationships between family structure and physician visits or usual source of care, and there were no significant disparities by family structure at the highest levels of maternal education. There were no family structure differences in unmet needs at low maternal education, whereas children of single mothers had more unmet needs at high levels of maternal education, even after adjustment for insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: At high levels of maternal education, family structure did not influence physician visits or having a usual source of care, as expected. However, at low levels of maternal education, single mothers appeared to be better at accessing care for their children. Health insurance coverage explained some of the access differences by family structure. Medicaid is important for children of single mothers, but children in two-parent families whose mothers are less educated do not always have access to that resource. Public health insurance coverage is critical to ensure adequate health care access and utilization among children of less educated mothers, regardless of family structure.