Literature DB >> 15036818

Inequities in access to medical care in five countries: findings from the 2001 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey.

Cathy Schoen1, Michelle M Doty.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine across five countries inequities in access to health care and quality of care experiences associated with income, and to determine whether these inequities persist after controlling for the effect of insurance coverage, minority and immigration status, health and other important co-factors.
DESIGN: Multivariate analysis of a cross-sectional 2001 random survey of 1400 adults in five countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access difficulties and waiting times, cost-related access problems, and ratings of physicians and quality of care.
RESULTS: The study finds wide and significant disparities in access and care experience between US adults with above and below-average incomes that persist after controlling for insurance coverage, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and other important factors. In contrast, differences in UK by income were rare. There were also few significant access differences by income in Australia; yet, compared to UK, Australians were more likely to report out of pocket costs. New Zealand and Canada results fell in the mid-range of the five nations, with income gaps most pronounced on services less well covered by national systems. In the four countries with universal coverage, adults with above-average income were more likely to have private supplemental insurance. Having private insurance in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand protects adults from cost-related access problems. In contrast, in UK having supplemental coverage makes little significant difference for access measures. Being uninsured in US has significant negative consequences for access and quality ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: For policy leaders, the five-nation survey demonstrates that some health systems are better able to minimize among low income adults financial barriers to access and quality care. However, the reliance on private coverage to supplement public coverage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand can result in access inequities even within health systems that provide basic health coverage for all. If private insurance can circumvent queues or waiting times, low income adults may also be at higher risks for non-financial barriers since they are less likely to have supplemental coverage. Furthermore, greater inequality in care experiences by income is associated with more divided public views of the need for system reform. This finding was particularly striking in Canada where an increased incidence of disparities by income in 2001 compared to a 1998 survey was associated with diverging views in 2001.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15036818     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  27 in total

1.  Medical Students' Opinions About the Commercialization of Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  M Murat Civaner; Harun Balcioglu; Kevser Vatansever
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Development of a conceptual framework for understanding financial barriers to care among patients with cardiovascular-related chronic disease: a protocol for a qualitative (grounded theory) study.

Authors:  David J T Campbell; Braden J Manns; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Claudia Sanmartin; Kathryn M King-Shier
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-06-08

3.  Improving access to health care among New Zealand's Maori population.

Authors:  Lis Ellison-Loschmann; Neil Pearce
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Measuring quality through performance. Respecting the subjective: quality measurement from the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Stephen Buetow; Judith Hibbard; Michel Wensing
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-17

5.  A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid.

Authors:  Thomas R Frieden
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  The effect of socioeconomic status on access to primary care: an audit study.

Authors:  Michelle E Olah; Gregory Gaisano; Stephen W Hwang
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Cross national study of injury and social determinants in adolescents.

Authors:  W Pickett; M Molcho; K Simpson; I Janssen; E Kuntsche; J Mazur; Y Harel; W F Boyce
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.399

8.  Postponing a General Practitioner Visit: Describing Social Differences in Thirty-One European Countries.

Authors:  Jens Detollenaere; Amelie Van Pottelberge; Lise Hanssens; Lieven Pauwels; Tessa van Loenen; Sara Willems
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Non-random geographical distribution of infant mortality in Austria 1984-2002.

Authors:  Thomas Waldhoer; Gerald Haidinger; Martin Wald; Harald Heinzl
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 10.  A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services' accessibility in economic migrants.

Authors:  Andrés A Agudelo-Suárez; Diana Gil-González; Carmen Vives-Cases; John G Love; Peter Wimpenny; Elena Ronda-Pérez
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.