Patient cost sharing and physician visits by socioeconomic position: findings in three Western European countries

Socioeconomic Status and Use of Outpatient Medical Care: The Case of Germany

Background

Socially disadvantaged people have an increased need for medical care due to a higher burden of health problems and chronic diseases. In Germany, outpatient care is chiefly provided by office-based general practitioners and specialists in private practice. People are free to choose the physician they prefer. In this study, national data were used to examine differences in the use of outpatient medical care by socioeconomic status (SES).

Methods

The analyses were based on data from 6,754 participants in the Robert Koch Institute’s German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) aged between 18 and 69 years. The number of outpatient physician visits during the past twelve months was assessed for several medical specializations. SES was determined based on education, occupation, and income. Associations between SES and physician visits were analysed using logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression for count data.

Results

After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health indicators, outpatients with low SES had more contacts with general practitioners than outpatients with high SES (men: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.46; women: IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07–1.34). The use of specialists was lower in people with low SES than in those with high SES when sociodemographic factors and health indicators were adjusted for (men: odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.51–0.91; women: OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41–0.77). This applied particularly to specialists in internal medicine, dermatology, and gynaecology. The associations remained after additional adjustment for the type of health insurance and the regional density of office-based physicians.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that socially disadvantaged people are seen by general practitioners more often than the socially better-off, who are more likely to visit a medical specialist. These differences may be due to differences in patient preferences, physician factors, physician-patient interaction, and potential barriers to accessing specialist care.

How does copayment for health care services affect demand, health and redistribution? A systematic review of the empirical evidence from 1990 to 2011

This article reviews the quantitative evidence on the behavioural effects of copayment within the health area across a wide range of countries. The review distinguishes itself from previous similar reviews by having a high degree of transparency for the search strategy used to identify the studies included in the review as well as the criteria for inclusion and by including the most recent literature. Empirical studies were identified by performing searches in EconLit. The literature search identified a total of 47 studies of the behavioural effects of copayment. Considering the demand effects, the majority of the reviewed studies found that copayment reduces the use of prescription medicine, consultations with general practitioners and specialists, and ambulatory care, respectively. The literature found no significant effects of copayment on the prevalence of hospitalisations. The empirical evidence on whether copayment for some services, but not for others, causes substitution from the services that are subject to copayment to the 'free' services rather than lower total use is sparse and mixed. Likewise, the health effects of copayment have only been analysed empirically in a limited number of studies, of which half did not find any significant effects in the short term. Finally, the empirical evidence on the distributional consequences of copayment indicates that individuals with low income and in particular need of care generally reduce their use relatively more than the remaining population in consequence of copayment. Hence, it is clear that copayment involves some important economic and political trade-offs.

Introducing out-of-pocket payment for general practice in Denmark: feasibility and support

AIMS

The financing of General Practice (GP) is a much-debated topic. In spite of out-of-pocket (OOP) payment for other primary health care provided by self-employed professionals, there is no OOP payment for the use of GP in Denmark. This article aims to explore the arguments, the actors and the decision-making context.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An analysis of the healthcare-policy debate in Parliament and the media from 1990 until September 2012. The materials are parliamentary hearings/discussions and newspaper articles. Kingdon's model on Policy Windows and the Advocacy Coalition framework by Sabatier and Jenkins are used to investigate explanations.

RESULTS

The arguments from the proponents are: that OOP payment for GP will reduce pressure on the primary sector; that the current allocation of OOP payment in the sector is historically conditioned; and that resistance towards OOP payment is based on emotions. The main argument from the opponents is that OOP payment will increase social inequality in health.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little connection between the attitudes and ideological backgrounds of the political parties. Despite factors such as perceived expert/scientific evidence for OOP payment, changes of government, financial crisis and a market-based reform wave, no government has introduced OOP payment for GP. This article suggests that governmental positions, public- and especially health-professional support are important factors in the decision-making context.

Social Class Inequalities in the Utilization of Health Care and Preventive Services in Spain, a Country with a National Health System

In Spain, despite the existence of a National Health System (NHS), the utilization of some curative health services is related to social class. This study assesses (1) whether these inequalities are also observed for preventive health services and (2) the role of additional private health insurance for people of advantaged social classes. Using data from the Spanish National Health Survey of 2006, the authors analyze the relationships between social class and use of health services by means of Poisson regression models with robust variance, controlling for self-assessed health. Similar analyses were performed for waiting times for visits to a general practitioner (GP) and specialist. After controlling for self-perceived health, men and women from social classes IV-V had a higher probability of visiting the GP than other social classes, but a lower probability of visiting a specialist or dentist. No large class differences were observed in frequency of hospitalization or emergency services use, or in breast cancer screening or influenza vaccination; cervical cancer screening frequency was lower among women from social classes IV-V. The inequalities in specialist visits, dentist visits, and cervical cancer screening were larger among people with only NHS insurance than those with double health insurance. Social class differences in waiting times were observed for specialist visits, but not for GP visits. Men and women from social classes IV-V had longer waits for a specialist; this was most marked among people with only NHS insurance. Clearly, within the NHS, social class inequalities are still evident for some curative and preventive services. Further research is needed to identify the factors driving these inequalities and to tackle these factors from within the NHS. Priority areas include specialist services, dental care, and cervical cancer screening.

Copayments for ambulatory care in Germany: a natural experiment using a difference-in-difference approach

In response to increasing health expenditures and a high number of physician visits, the German government introduced a copayment for ambulatory care in 2004 for individuals with statutory health insurance (SHI). Because persons with private insurance were exempt from the copayments, this health-care reform can be regarded as a natural experiment. We used a difference-in-difference approach to examine whether the new copayment effectively reduced the overall demand for physician visits and to explore whether it acted as a deterrent to vulnerable groups, such as those with low income or chronic conditions. We found that there was no significant reduction in the number of physician visits among SHI members compared to our control group. At the same time, we did not observe a deterrent effect among vulnerable individuals. Thus, the copayment has failed to reduce the demand for physician visits. It is likely that this result is due to the design of the copayment scheme, as the copayment is low and is paid only for the first physician visit per quarter.

Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr')? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors

BACKGROUND

In 2004, a practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr') was implemented in the German health care system, mainly in order to reduce expenditures of sickness funds by reducing outpatient physician visits. In the statutory sickness funds, all adults now have to pay euro 10 at their first physician visit in each 3 month period, except for vaccinations and preventive services. This study looks at the effect of this new patient fee on delaying or avoiding physician visits, with a special emphasis on different income groups.

METHODS

Six representative surveys (conducted between 2004 and 2006) of the Bertelsmann Healthcare Monitor were analysed, comprising 7,769 women and men aged 18 to 79 years. The analyses are based on stratified analyses and logistic regression models, including a focus on the subgroup having a chronic disease.

RESULTS

Two results can be highlighted. First, avoiding or delaying a physician visit due to this fee is seen most often among younger and healthier adults. Second, those in the lowest income group are much more affected in this way than the better of. The multivariate analysis in the subgroup of respondents having a chronic disease shows, for example, that this reaction is reported 2.45 times more often in the lowest income group than in the highest income group (95% CI: 1.90-3.15).

CONCLUSION

The analyses indicate that the effects of the practice charge differ by socio-economic group. It would be important to assess these effects in more detail, especially the effects on health care quality and health outcomes. It can be assumed, however, that avoiding or delaying physician visits jeopardizes both, and that health inequalities are increasing due to the practice charge.