Using administrative data to look at changes in the level and distribution of out-of-pocket medical expenditure: An example using Medicare data from Australia

Challenges for Medicare and universal health care in Australia since 2000

OBJECTIVES

To identify the financing and policy challenges for Medicare and universal health care in Australia, as well as opportunities for whole-of-system strengthening.

STUDY DESIGN

Review of publications on Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the universal health care system in Australia published 1 January 2000 - 14 August 2021 that reported quantitative or qualitative research or data analyses, and of opinion articles, debates, commentaries, editorials, perspectives, and news reports on the Australian health care system published 1 January 2015 - 14 August 2021. Program-, intervention- or provider-specific articles, and publications regarding groups not fully covered by Medicare (eg, asylum seekers, prisoners) were excluded.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE Complete, the Health Policy Reference Centre, and Global Health databases (all via EBSCO); the Analysis & Policy Observatory, the Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, the Australian Public Affairs Information Service, Google, Google Scholar, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) websites.

RESULTS

The problems covered by the 76 articles included in our review could be grouped under seven major themes: fragmentation of health care and lack of integrated health financing, access of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to health services and essential medications, reform proposals for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the burden of out-of-pocket costs, inequity, public subsidies for private health insurance, and other challenges for the Australian universal health care system.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of challenges threaten the sustainability and equity of the universal health care system in Australia. As the piecemeal reforms of the past twenty years have been inadequate for meeting these challenges, more effective, coordinated approaches are needed to improve and secure the universality of public health care in Australia.

Progressivity of out-of-pocket costs under Australia's universal health care system: A national linked data study

BACKGROUND

In line with affordability and equity principles, Medicare-Australia's universal health care program-has measures to contain out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, particularly for lower income households. This study examined the distribution of OOP costs for Medicare-subsidised out-of-hospital services and prescription medicines in Australian households, according to their ability to pay.

METHODS

OOP costs for out-of-hospital services and medicines in 2017-18 were estimated for each household, using 2016 Australian Census data linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) claims. We derived household disposable income by combining income information from the Census linked to income tax and social security data. We quantified OOP costs as a proportion of equivalised household disposable income and calculated Kakwani progressivity indices (K).

RESULTS

Using data from 82% (n = 6,830,365) of all Census private households, OOP costs as a percentage of equivalised household disposable income decreased from 1.16% in the poorest decile to 0.63% in the richest decile for MBS services, and from 1.35% to 0.35% for PBS medicines. The regressive trend was less pronounced for MBS services (K = -0.06), with percentage OOP cost relatively stable between the 2nd and 9th income deciles; while percentage OOP cost decreased with increasing income for PBS medicines (K = -0.24).

CONCLUSION

OOP costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services were mildly regressive while those for prescription medicines were distinctly regressive. Actions to reduce inequity in OOP costs, particularly for medicines, should be considered.

The link between out-of-pocket costs and inequality in specialist care in Australia

Objective Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs could act as a potential barrier to accessing specialist services, particularly among low-income patients. The aim of this study is to examine the link between OOP costs and socioeconomic inequality in specialist services in Australia. Methods This study is based on population-level data from the Medicare Benefits Schedule of Australia in 2014-15. Three outcomes of specialist care were used: all visits, visits without OOP costs (bulk-billed services), and visits with OOP costs. Logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to examine the association between outcome variables and area-level socioeconomic status after controlling for age, sex, state of residence, and geographic remoteness. The concentration index was used to quantify the extent of inequality. Results Our results indicate that the distribution of specialist visits favoured the people living in wealthier areas of Australia. There was a pro-rich inequality in specialist visits associated with OOP costs. However, the distribution of the visits incurring zero OOP cost was slightly favourable to the people living in lower socioeconomic areas. The pro-poor distribution of visits with zero OOP cost was insufficient to offset the pro-rich distribution among the visits with OOP costs. Conclusions OOP costs for specialist care might partly undermine the equity principle of Medicare in Australia. This presents a challenge to the government on how best to influence the rate and distribution of specialists' services.

The impact of economic policy uncertainty on firms’ investment in innovation: Evidence from Chinese listed firms

This paper uses data of Chinese listed enterprises and economic policy uncertainty index for empirical analysis, and conducts a study through three channels of monetary policy uncertainty affecting enterprise innovation investment, and finds that economic policy uncertainty has a positive promotion effect on enterprise R&D investment, and its increase in tension is instead a clear signal that can effectively increase enterprise R&D investment, this promotion effect seems unexpected, this paper Through theoretical analysis and combined with the actual practice, this incentive effect is found to be in line with reality. However, in the subsequent heterogeneity analysis, this paper finds that it positively promotes R&D investment when economic policy uncertainty is low and may have a suppressive effect on R&D investment when monetary policy uncertainty is high.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses compared across five years for patients with one of five common cancers in Australia

Background

Patient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis.

Methods

Participants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately.

Results

On average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services.

Conclusion

Out-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08756-x.

A cross-sectional analysis of out-of-pocket expenses for people living with a cancer in rural and outer metropolitan Western Australia

Objective To determine the extent of medical and non-medical out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) among regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients diagnosed with cancer, and the factors associated with higher costs. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from adult patients living in four regional/rural areas and two outer metropolitan regions in Western Australia who had been diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer. Consenting participants were mailed demographic and financial questionnaires, and requested to report all OOPE related to their cancer treatment. Results The median total OOPE reported by 308 regional/rural participants and 119 outer metropolitan participants were A$1518 (interquartile range (IQR): A$581-A$3769) and A$2855 (IQR: A$958-A$7142) respectively. Participants most likely to experience higher total OOPE were younger than 65 years of age, male, resided in the outer metropolitan area, worked prior to diagnosis, had private health insurance, were in a relationship, and underwent surgery. Multivariate analysis of regional/rural participants revealed that receiving care at a rural cancer centre was associated with significantly lower non-medical OOPE (estimated mean A$805, 95% confidence interval (CI): A$735-A$875, P=0.038; compared with other rural participants (A$1347, 95% CI: A$743-A$1951, P<0.001)). Conclusion The cancer patients who participated in this study experienced variation in OOPE, with outer metropolitan participants reporting higher OOPE compared with their regional/rural counterparts. There is a need for cost transparency and access to care close to home, so that patients can make informed choices about where to receive their care. What is known about the topic? In recent years, OOPE for health care in general and cancer in particular have been widely debated by consumers and not-for-profit organisations; the topic has attracted much political attention because it affects both equity and access to care and has wider financial implications for the community. Research studies and reports from both consumer organisations and a Ministerial Advisory Committee found that cancer patients can face exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, and that individuals with private health insurance and those with prostate and breast cancer reported higher costs. In Western Australia, a cancer centre providing comprehensive cancer care was established in the second most populous region to ameliorate the high costs for travel and accommodation that regional cancer patients are known to experience. What does this paper add? This study is unique because it collected detailed cost information from patients and reports on the OOPE of regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients receiving care for one of the four most common cancers; it therefore offers novel insight into the experiences of these groups. This study demonstrates that outer metropolitan cancer patients are experiencing much higher OOPE compared with regional/rural cancer patients. Additionally, regional/rural study participants who accessed a Regional Cancer Centre experienced significantly lower non-medical OOPE, compared with regional/rural study participants receiving care elsewhere. What are the implications for practitioners? First, there is a need for improved communication of OOPE to minimise costs to the patient, for example, by facilitating access to local cancer care. Health service providers and insurance companies can improve cost transparency for cancer patients by making this information more readily available, allowing patients to make informed financial choices about where to seek care. Second, the needs of working patients deserve specific attention. These patients face significant work uncertainty and additional distress following a cancer diagnosis.

Inequality in out of pocket fees, government funding and utilisation of maternal health services in Australia

This study aimed to assess the distribution of service utilisation, out-of-pocket fees and government funding for maternal health care in Australia by socioeconomic group. A large linked administrative dataset was utilised. Women were grouped into socioeconomic quintiles using an area-based measure of socioeconomic status. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the distribution of number of services, out of pocket fees, and government funding by socioeconomic quintile. Needs-adjusted concentration indices (CI_NA) were utilised to quantify inequity. The mean out of pocket fees for women of least socioeconomic advantage was $1,026 and for women of most socioeconomic advantage the mean was $2,432 (CI_NA 0.093, 95% CI: 0.088 - 0.098). However, use of many services were higher for women of most socioeconomic advantage: private obstetrician (CI_NA: 0.035, 95% CI: 0.032 - 0.038), other specialist services (CI_NA: 0.089, 95%CI: 0.083 - 0.094), and diagnostic and pathology tests (CI_NA: 0.027, 95%CI: 0.025 - 0.030). Federal government funding through Medicare was distributed towards women of most socioeconomic advantage (CI_NA: 0.036, 95%CI: 0.033 - 0.039); whereas government public hospital funding was skewed towards women of least socioeconomic advantage (CI_NA: -0.05, 95%CI: -0.057 - -0.046). Future policy changes in Australia's healthcare system need to ensure that women of least socioeconomic advantage have adequate access to maternity and early childhood care, and out of pocket fees are not an access barrier.

Horizontal inequity in the utilisation of healthcare services in Australia

The Australian universal healthcare system aims to ensure affordable and equitable use of healthcare services based on individual health needs. This paper presents empirical evidence on the extent of horizontal inequity (HI) in healthcare services (unequal utilisation by income for equal need) in Australia during the period of promoting reliance on private healthcare financing. Using data from the most recent Australian National Health Survey of 2011-12 and 2014-15, we examined and measured the extent of HI in eight indicators of out-of-hospital services and hospital-related care. Contrary to earlier studies, our results show a small but pro-rich inequity in the probability of general practitioner visits. Inequity in the distribution of specialist and dentist visits was in favour of richer people, a result that is commonly found in other developed countries and is also consistent with existing Australian evidence. Hospital-related care was equitably distributed compared to the pro-poor pattern found in earlier studies. Despite the universal health insurance system in Australia, there was inequity in the utilisation of needed healthcare services. Our evidence is relevant to similar health systems as governments move to higher out-of-pocket payments and other private sources to reduce pressure on public healthcare expenditure.

Income-based inequities in access to mental health services in Canada

OBJECTIVES

While mental health services provided by general practitioners and psychiatrists can be billed to public health insurance programs in Canada, services provided by psychologists, social workers and other non-physician providers cannot. This study assesses the extent to which access to mental health services varies by income after first taking into account the higher concentration of mental health needs at lower income levels.

METHOD

Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2013-2014 are used to calculate need-standardized concentration indices for access to mental health services.

RESULTS

More pro-rich utilization of mental health services provided by non-physicians and more equitable utilization of physician services is found for psychologists and general practitioners, but not for social workers, nurses and psychiatrists. Unmet need for healthcare for mental health problems is found to be more pro-poor than unmet need for physical health problems.

CONCLUSION

By standardizing for inequitable distribution of mental health need, this study provides strong evidence that income-based inequity in access to mental health services is an issue under Canada's two-tier system, particularly with regard to general practitioners and psychologists. For other types of providers, the results suggest that inequities in service utilization vary not just by Medicare coverage but also by service settings and target populations. Despite these variations, greater inequities in unmet need for mental health care than for physical health care suggest that inequity is the dominant reality for Canadians. The results provide a baseline that could be used to assess the equity impacts of policy reforms.

Long-term out of pocket expenditure of people with cancer: comparing health service cost and use for indigenous and non-indigenous people with cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND

Indigenous Australians diagnosed with cancer have poorer survival compared to non-Indigenous Australians. We aim to: 1) identify differences by Indigenous status in out-of-pocket expenditure for the first three-years post-diagnosis; 2) identify differences in the quantity and cost of healthcare services accessed; and 3) estimate the number of additional services required if access was equal between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people with cancer.

METHODS

We used CancerCostMod, a model using linked administrative data. The base population was all persons diagnosed with cancer in Queensland, Australia (01JUL2011 to 30JUN2012) (n = 25,553). Each individual record was then linked to their Admitted Patient Data Collection, Emergency Data Information System, Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) records (01JUL2011 to 30JUN2015). We then weighted the population to be representative of the Australian population (approximately 123,900 Australians, 1.7% Indigenous Australians). The patient co-payment charged for each MBS service and PBS prescription was summed for each month from date of diagnosis to 36-months post-diagnosis. We then limited our model to MBS items to identify the quantity and type of healthcare services accessed during the first three-years.

RESULTS

On average Indigenous people with cancer had less than half the out-of-pocket expenditure for each 12-month period (0-12 months: mean $401 Indigenous vs $1074 non-Indigenous; 13-24 months: mean $200 vs $484; and 25-36 months: mean $181 vs $441). A stepwise generalised linear model of out-of-pocket expenditure found that Indigenous status was a significant predictor of out of pocket expenditure. We found that Indigenous people with cancer on average accessed 236 services per person, however, this would increase to 309 services per person if Indigenous people had the same rate of service use as non-Indigenous people.

CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous people with cancer had lower out-of-pocket expenditure, but also accessed fewer Medicare services compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Indigenous people with cancer were less likely to access specialist attendances, pathology tests, and diagnostic imaging through MBS, and more likely to access primary health care, such as services provided by general practitioners.

Income-based inequities in access to psychotherapy and other mental health services in Canada and Australia

This paper compares income-based inequities in access to psychotherapy and other mental health services in Canada and Australia, two federal parliamentary systems with sharply contrasting responses to high rates of unmet need. Income-based inequity is measured by need-standardized concentration indices, using comparable data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2011-2012 and the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being 2007. The results indicate that utilization of psychologist services is more concentrated at higher income levels (i.e. pro-rich) than the other provider groups in both countries, and may be more pro-rich in Canada than in Australia. While the distribution of unmet need for psychotherapy was expected (as a negative indicator of access) to be more concentrated at lower income levels (i.e. pro-poor) under Canada's two-tier system, unmet need was not more equitable in Australia despite expanded public insurance coverage. As psychotherapy was made universally affordable for the first time in Australia in 2006, a possible backlog effect may have driven up both service utilization and unmet need, particularly among lower-income Australians. The impact of different Medicare co-payment policies also warrants further exploration.

Expanding the breadth of Medicare: learning from Australia

The design of Australia’s Medicare programme was based on the Canadian scheme, adapted somewhat to take account of differences in the constitutional division of powers in the two countries and differences in history. The key elements are very similar: access to hospital services without charge being the core similarity, universal coverage for necessary medical services, albeit with a variable co-payment in Australia, the other. But there are significant differences between the two countries in health programmes – whether or not they are labelled as ‘Medicare’. This paper discusses four areas where Canada could potentially learn from Australia in a positive way. First, Australia has had a national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for almost 70 years. Second, there have been hesitant extensions to Australia’s Medicare to address the increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions – extensions which include some payments for allied health professionals, ‘care coordination’ payments, and exploration of ‘health care homes’. Third, Australia has a much more extensive system of support for older people to live in their homes or to move into supported residential care. Fourth, Australia has gone further in driving efficiency in the hospital sector than has Canada. Finally, the paper examines aspects of the Australian health care system that Canada should avoid, including the very high level of out-of-pocket costs, and the role of private acute inpatient provision.

Patient out-of-pocket medical expenses over 2 years among Queenslanders with and without a major cancer

Medical out-of-pocket costs paid by patients can be problematic when it adversely affects access to care. Survey research involving patients with out-of-pocket expenses may have selection biases, so accurate estimates are unknown. During 2010–11, 419 participants from the QSkin Sun and Health Study (n=43794) had a confirmed diagnosis of either melanoma, prostate, breast, colorectal or lung cancer. These were matched to a general population group (n=421) and a group of high users of GP services (n=419). Medical fees charged and out-of-pocket medical expenses for Medicare services were analysed. Over 2 years, three-quarters of individuals with cancer paid up-front provider fees of up to A$20551 compared with A$10995 for the high GP user group and A$6394 for the general population group. Out-of-pocket expenses were significantly higher for those with cancer (mean A$3514) compared with the high GP-user group (mean A$1837) and general population group (A$1245). Highest expenses were for therapeutic procedures (mean A$2062). Older individuals, those with poor perceived health or private health insurance had the highest costs. Regardless of private insurance status, patients with one of the main five cancers pay significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for health care compared with those without cancer.