Is inequity undermining Australia's ‘universal’ health care system? Socio‐economic inequalities in the use of specialist medical and non‐medical ambulatory health care

Objectives: To quantify need-adjusted socio-economic inequalities in medical and non-medical ambulatory health care in Australia and to examine the effects of specific interventions, namely concession cards and private health insurance (PHI), on equity.
Methods: We used data from a 2004 survey of 10,905 Australian women aged 53 to 58 years. We modelled the association between socio-economic status and health service use — GPs, specialists, hospital doctors, allied and alternative health practitioners, and dentists — adjusting for health status and other confounding variables. We quantified inequalities using the relative index of inequality (RII) using Poisson regression. The contribution of concession cards and PHI in promoting equity/inequity was examined using mediating models.
Results: There was equality in the use of GP services, but socio-economically advantaged women were more likely than disadvantaged women to use specialist (RII=1.41, 95% CI:1.26–1.58), allied health (RII=1.21,1.12–1.30), alternative health (RII=1.29,1.13–1.47) and dental services (RII=1.61,1.48–1.75) after adjusting for need, and they were less likely to visit hospital doctors (RII=0.74,0.57–0.96). Concession cards reduced socio-economic inequality in GP but not specialist care. Inequality in dental and allied health services was partly explained by inequalities in PHI.
Conclusions and implications: Substantial socio-economic inequity exists in use of specialist and non-medical ambulatory care in Australia. This is likely to exacerbate existing health inequalities, but is potentially amenable to change.     

Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has developed a central role in applied cost-effectiveness studies in health care as the vehicle for analysis. This paper considers the role of trial-based economic evaluation in this era of explicit decision making. It is argued that any framework for economic analysis can only be judged insofar as it can inform two key decisions and be consistent with the objectives of a health care system subject to its resource constraints. The two decisions are, firstly, whether to adopt a health technology given existing evidence and, secondly, an assessment of whether more evidence is required to support this decision in the future. It is argued that a framework of economic analysis is needed which can estimate costs and effects, based on all the available evidence, relating to the full range of possible alternative interventions and clinical strategies, over an appropriate time horizon and for specific patient groups. It must also enable the accumulated evidence to be synthesised in an explicit and transparent way in order to fully represent the decision uncertainty. These requirements suggest that, in most circumstances, the use of a single RCT as a vehicle for economic analysis will be an inadequate and partial basis for decision making. It is argued that RCT evidence, with or without economic content, should be viewed as simply one of the sources of evidence, which must be placed in a broader framework of evidence synthesis and decision analysis.     

Self‐care as care left undone? The ethics of the self‐care agenda in contemporary healthcare policy

Self‐care, or self‐management, is presented in healthcare policy as a precursor to patient empowerment and improved patient outcomes. Alternatively, critiques of the self‐care agenda suggest that it represents an over‐reliance on individual autonomy and responsibility, without adequate support, whereby ‘self‐care’ is potentially unachievable and becomes ‘care left undone’. In this sense, self‐care contributes to a blame culture where ill‐health is attributed to personal behaviours or lack thereof. Furthermore, self‐care may represent a covert form of rationing, as the fiscal means to enable effective self‐care and supplement, or replace, self‐care capacities, is not provided. This paper explores these arguments through a contemporary ethical analysis of the self‐care agenda. The terms self‐care and self‐management are used interchangeably throughout whereby self‐management is understood as a point in the wider self‐care continuum.     

Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?

Background: A reproducible observation is that consumers' willingness‐to‐accept (WTA) monetary compensation to forgo a program is greater than their stated willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for the same benefit. Several explanations exist, including the psychological principle that the utility of losses weighs heavier than gains. We sought to quantify the WTP–WTA disparity from published literature and explore implications for cost‐effectiveness analysis accept–reject thresholds in the south‐west quadrant of the cost‐effectiveness plane (less effect, less cost). Methods: We reviewed published studies (health and non‐health) to estimate the ratio of WTA to WTP for the same program benefit for each study and to determine if WTA is consistently greater than WTP in the literature. Results: WTA/WTP ratios were greater than unity for every study we reviewed. The ratios ranged from 3.2 to 89.4 for environmental studies (n=7), 1.9 to 6.4 for health care studies (n=2), 1.1 to 3.6 for safety studies (n=4) and 1.3 to 2.6 for experimental studies (n=7). Conclusions: Given that WTA is greater than WTP based on individual preferences, should not societal preferences used to determine cost‐effectiveness thresholds reflect this disparity? Current convention in cost‐effectiveness analysis is that any given accept–rejection criterion (e.g. $50 k/QALY gained) is symmetric – a straight line through the origin of the cost‐effectiveness plane. The WTA–WTP evidence suggests a downward ‘kink’ through the origin for the south‐west quadrant, such that the ‘selling price’ of a QALY is greater than the ‘buying price’. The possibility of ‘kinky cost‐effectiveness’ decision rules and the size of the kink merits further exploration. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can managers empower nurse‐midwives to improve maternal health care? A comparison of two resource‐poor hospitals in Tanzania

Maternal mortality is very high in Tanzania. Competent hospital care is key to improving maternal outcomes, but there is a crisis of availability and performance of health workers in maternal care. This article uses interviews with managers, nurse‐midwives, and women who had given birth in two hospitals providing virtually all the emergency maternal care in one Tanzania city. It contrasts women's experience in the two hospitals, and analyses interconnections with nurse‐midwives' and managers' experiences of working conditions. The conceptual literature on nurse empowerment identifies some key explanatory variables for these contrasts. Staff experienced less frustration and constraint in one of the hospitals; had more access to structurally empowering resources; and experienced greater congruence between job commitment and working culture, resulting in better work engagement. Conversely, nurse‐midwives in the other hospital were constrained by supply shortages and recurrent lack of support. Contrasting management styles and their impacts demonstrate that even in severely resource‐constrained environments, there is room for management to empower staff to improve maternal care. Empowering management practices include participatory management, supportive supervision, better incentives, and clear leadership concerning ward culture. Structural constraints beyond the capacity of health facility managers must however also be addressed. © 2015 The Authors. International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How do hospital‐specialty characteristics influence health system responsiveness? An empirical evaluation of in‐patient care in the Italian region of Emilia‐Romagna

Studies of health system responsiveness mostly focus on the demand side by investigating the association between sociodemographic characteristics of patients and their reported level of responsiveness. However, little is known about the influence of supply‐side factors. This paper addresses that research gap by analysing the role of hospital‐specialty characteristics in explaining variations in patients' evaluation of responsiveness from a sample of about 38,700 in‐patients treated in public hospitals within the Italian Region of Emilia‐Romagna. The analysis is carried out by adopting a 2‐step procedure. First, we use patients' self‐reported data to derive 5 measures of responsiveness at the hospital‐specialty level. By estimating a generalised ordered probit model, we are able to correct for variations in individual reporting behaviour due to the health status of patients and their experience of being in pain. Second, we run cross‐sectional regressions to investigate the association between patients' responsiveness and potential supply‐side drivers, including waiting times, staff workload, the level of spending on non‐clinical facilities, the level of spending on staff education and training, and the proportion of staff expenditure between nursing and administrative staff. Results suggest that responsiveness is to some extent influenced by the supply‐side drivers considered.     

The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?

BACKGROUND: Recent proposals to reform cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) by weighting health benefits [(Quality-adjusted life-years) QALYs] by recipients' age are based on studies examining age-related preferences in life-saving contexts. We investigated whether the perceived importance of age in resource allocation decisions differs among intervention-types. METHODS: 160 individuals were recruited from a cafeteria of a university medical centre and asked to choose between hypothetical health care programmes. Scenario A described two programmes treating life-threatening conditions and Scenario B two programmes providing palliative care. Programmes were identical except in average patient age (35 versus 65). Respondents also directly rated the importance of age for allocating resources for six types of interventions. RESULTS: Responses for the life-saving scenario favoured younger age groups while those for the palliative care scenario showed no age preference. The difference between scenarios was statistically significant. When directly rating the importance of age in allocating treatment resources, people placed greatest importance on age in treating infertility and life-saving, and least importance in treating depression. DISCUSSION: The importance people place on age as a resource allocation criterion depends on the clinical context. As QALYs serve as a common measure of health benefits for all intervention types, age weighting of QALYs is premature.     

Does managed health care reduce health care disparities between minorities and Whites?

This paper investigates whether managed care ameliorates or aggravates ethnic and racial health care disparities in Medicare. First, we analyze the choice of type of insurance made by Medicare enrollees to see if minorities are more likely to choose the managed care alternative. Second, we study the differential effect of managed care on disparities using several measures of access, use and cost of services. Both analyses are conducted on two independent data sets, the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. We conclude that relative to Whites, minorities are at least as well off -- in terms of benefits and costs -- in Medicare managed care as in Medicare traditional indemnity plans.     

Managing for health: why health care?

Health and health care are increasingly big business. The challenge is to apply our knowledge and skills to meet people's needs, if not their demands as efficiently, effectively and beneficially as possible. Value for money is the slogan. For those who deliver the goods as required, the converse, money for value should equally apply, and not only in a market driven system. This paper offers a very personal view of these issues in the light of recent UK policy developments.     

Practice variation in the Dutch long‐term care and the role of supply‐sensitive care: Is access to the Dutch long‐term care equitable?

Universal access and generous coverage are important goals of the Dutch long‐term care (LTC) system. It is a legal requirement that everyone eligible for LTC should be able to receive it. Institutional care (IC) made up for 90% of Dutch LTC spending. To investigate whether access to IC is as equitable as the Dutch government aspires, we explored practice variation in entitlements to IC across Dutch regions. We used a unique dataset that included all individual applications for Dutch LTC in January 2010–December 2013 (N = 3,373,358). This dataset enabled an accurate identification of the need for care. We examined the local variation in the probability of being granted long‐term IC and in the intensity of the care granted given that individuals have applied for LTC. We also investigated whether the variation observed was related to differences in the local availability of care facilities. Although our analyses indicated the presence of some practice variation, its magnitude was very small by national and international standards (up to 3%). Only a minor part of the practice variation could be accounted for by local supply differences in care facilities. Overall, we conclude that, unlike many other developed countries, the Dutch system ensured equitable access to long‐term IC.     

Happy with health care?

The American Association of Health Plans (the main HMO trade association), in making the case against patients' rights legislation, points to polling data that show Americans are basically satisfied with managed care plans. Although large majorities, including those with HMOs, do say they are "satisfied" with their health care plans, HMO members are less satisfied than members of other types of plans. And if we look beyond personal-satisfaction ratings, we find plenty of evidence for public concern about HMOs in particular and the health care system in general. Americans are supportive of HMO regulation, and despite their willingness to say they are "satisfied" with their health care plans, they harbor a lot of worries about the future--treatment that could be denied them, costs that could ruin them, and loss of coverage. The public sees the need for major change not just in HMOs but in the health care system as a whole. As HMO lobbyists scramble for new arguments against legislation, they will likely persist in misrepresenting and misusing polling data to make their case.     

How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?

Willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) estimates derived from discrete‐choice experiments (DCEs) generally assume that the marginal utility of income is constant. This assumption is consistent with theoretical expectations when costs are a small fraction of total income. We analyze the results of five DCEs that allow direct tests of this assumption. Tests indicate that marginal utility often violates theoretical expectations. We suggest that this result is an artifact of a cognitive heuristic that recodes cost levels from a numerical scale to qualitative categories. Instead of evaluating nominal costs in the context of a budget constraint, subjects may recode costs into categories such as ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ and choose as if the differences between categories were equal. This simplifies the choice task, but undermines the validity of WTP estimates as welfare measures. Recoding may be a common heuristic in health‐care applications when insurance coverage distorts subjects' perception of the nominal costs presented in the DCE instrument. Recoding may also distort estimates of marginal rates of substitution for other attributes with numeric levels. Incorporating ‘cheap talk’ or graphic representation of attribute levels may encourage subjects to be more attentive to absolute attribute levels. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.