The Impact of Healthcare Privatization on Access to Surgical Care: Cholecystectomy as a Model

Impact of Privatization on Healthcare System: A Systematic Review

Background

A notable shift in healthcare policy is healthcare privatization, which refers to the transfer of ownership, management, or provision of healthcare services from the public sector to private entities.

Objectives

To provide a narrative examination of the impact of privatization on various dimensions of healthcare, including quality, equity, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Policymakers can utilize the findings of this study to make well-informed decisions regarding privatization strategies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review was implemented using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies conducted from January 2000 to January 2023 in developing or developed countries that assessed the impact of healthcare privatization on population health within public sector institutions were included.

Results

Eleven studies were included. The findings revealed diverse perspectives on the impact of healthcare privatization, with four studies (36.4%) supporting privatization (two of these were conducted in Saudi Arabia), six studies (54.5%) opposing it (three of these were conducted in European countries), and one study (9.1%) taking a neutral stance. Two studies investigated the impact on healthcare quality, and both revealed that privatization negatively impacts uninsured patients and low-income populations. In addition, five studies investigated the healthcare access and equity dimensions following privatization: one was in favor, one was neutral, and three were opposing it. Four studies investigated the cost-effectiveness dimension, with three in favor and one study opposing it.

Conclusion

This review highlights different perspectives on healthcare privatization. While studies, as those from Saudi Arabia, suggest benefits in terms of efficiency and innovation, others, particularly from European countries, emphasize negative consequences such as inequity and reduced quality. This emphasizes the need for more investigations to understand privatization's impact on healthcare.

Socioeconomic factors influence surgical wait times for non-emergent gynecologic surgical procedures: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

In various disciplines, an association between surgical wait times and patient outcomes has been identified. This study is among the first to investigate whether practice setting influences wait times for elective surgeries in benign gynecology.

METHODS

This retrospective study of patients at three New York hospitals from 10/2019-2/2020 compared surgical wait times among patients seen in federally-qualified health centers (FQHC's) and private practice settings. Emergent surgeries, oncology cases, abortions, urogynecology procedures, and cases concurrently booked with another specialty were excluded. Surgical wait time was defined as the time (days) from the decision to operate to the day of the procedure. A multivariable mixed model was used to model surgical wait time by setting of care, adjusting for age, BMI, race, ethnicity, insurance, need for medical clearance, and scheduled block time. A univariable analysis was then utilized to assess surgical wait times by clinical setting for each insurance type.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty patients were identified with a median age of 45.6 years (range 16-87). Average surgical wait time was 27 days (range 1-288 days). In multivariable analysis, longer surgical wait times were associated with being seen preoperatively in a FQHC compared to the private practice setting (102% longer, 59.5 days vs. 22 days, p < 0.0001), and with needing medical clearance (56.4% longer, 45 days vs. 22 days. p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that in benign gynecology, surgical wait times are significantly influenced by the practice setting in which a patient gets care, with notable delays in care among patients who are seen in a federally qualified health center preoperatively.

Public-Private Partnership Policy in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Given the challenges of governments to deliver primary health care (PHC), engaging private sector in the form of public-private partnership (PPP) can be effective policy. The aim of present study is to review the experiences of implementing PPP policy in PHC.

METHODS

This scoping review study was conducted in 2019 using the framework proposed by Arkesy and O'Malley. Required data were collected through search the related keywords in databases, manual search of some journals, websites, and other sources of information and through references check, from January 2000 to May 2019. All studies, which focused on the results of PPP in PHC, and published in English or Persian were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 108 articles were included in the study. The studies were mostly conducted in low- and middle-income countries. The quantitative studies have demonstrated the success of this policy in improving PHC indicators. Based on the qualitative studies PPP in PHC has many benefits, including access improvement, economic benefits, and service quality enhancement.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides useful information on the experiences of different countries in the field of PPP in PHC that can be used by experts and decision makers to decide whether to engage the private sector in the form of PPP model.

Comparison of Referral Pathways in Otolaryngology at a Public Versus Private Academic Center

OBJECTIVE

Delayed medical care may be costly and dangerous. Examining referral pathways may provide insight into ways to reduce delays in care. We sought to compare time between initial referral and first clinic visit and referral and surgical intervention for index otolaryngologic procedures between a public safety net hospital (PSNH) and tertiary-care academic center (TAC).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of eligible adult patients undergoing one of several general otolaryngologic procedures at a PSNH (n = 216) and a TAC (n = 161) over a 2-year time period.

RESULTS

PSNH patients were younger, less likely to have comorbidities and more likely to be female, Hispanic or Asian, and to lack insurance. Time between referral and first clinic visit was shorter at the PSNH than the TAC (Mean 35.8 ± 47.7 vs 48.3 ± 60.3 days; P = .03). Time between referral and surgical intervention did not differ between groups (129 ± 90 for PSNH vs 141 ± 130 days for TAC, P = .30). On multivariate analysis, the TAC had more patient-related delays in care than the PSNH (OR: 3.75, P < .001). Time from referral to surgery at a PSNH was associated with age, source of referral, type of surgery, diagnostic workup and comorbidities, and at a TAC was associated with gender and type of surgery and comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic differences between PSNH and TAC patients, as well as differences in referral pathways between the types of institutions, influence progression of surgical care in otolaryngology. These differences may be targets for interventions to streamline care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c.

Critical analysis and review of the literature on healthcare privatization and its association with access to medical care in Saudi Arabia

This paper is a review of the literature on hospitals privatization to assess the influence of privatization on access to medical care. The results are used to complete further analysis on the situation in Saudi Arabia. Over 979 references were initially identified through a database search, and an additional 237 were included from other sources. From these sources, only 11 articles were considered for review after excluding the ineligible articles, such as those that did not meet the hospitals privatization's definition or other exclusion criteria. There is weak evidence and low scientific validity supporting the argument that privatization could increase access to medical care. Prior to privatization, Saudi Arabia has to consider reforming its healthcare financing, including auditing and efficiency. After privatization, a policy has to be developed to ensure that the most vulnerable groups have access to good-quality healthcare while controlling costs for care providers.