Sources of variation in the costs of health care for asthma patients in Australia

Cost-sharing and associated factors in the Peruvian private health care system

BACKGROUND

The costs associated with healthcare are of critical importance to both decision-makers and users, given the limited resources allocated to the health sector. However, the available scientific evidence on healthcare costs in low- and middle-income countries, such as Peru, is scarce. In the Peruvian context, the health system is fragmented, and the private health insurance and its financing models have received less research attention. We aimed to analyse user cost-sharing and associated factors within the private healthcare system.

METHODS

Our study was cross-sectional, using open data from the Electronic Transaction Model of Standardized Billing Data-TEDEF-SUSALUD, between 2021-2022. Our unit of analysis is the user's medical bills. We considered the total amount of cost-sharing, proportion of total payments as cost-sharing, and cost-sharing as a proportion of minimum salaries. We use a multiple regression model to perform the analyses.

RESULTS

Our study included 5,286,556 health services provided to users of the private health insurance in Peru. We found a significant difference was observed in the cost-sharing for hospitalization-related services, with an average of 419.64 soles per day (95% CI: 413.44 to 425.85). Also, we identified that for hospitalization-related services per day is, on average, 0.41 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.41) minimum salaries more expensive than outpatient care, although cost-sharing per day of hospitalization represent on average only 14% of the total amount submitted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a detailed overview of cost-sharing in the private healthcare system in Peru and the factors associated with them. Policymakers can use the study's finding that higher cost-sharing for inpatient hospitalization compared to outpatient care in private insurance can create inequities in access to healthcare to design policies aimed at reducing these costs and promoting a more equitable and accessible healthcare system in Peru.

Using scenarios to test the appropriateness of pharmacist prescribing in asthma management

OBJECTIVE

To explore the potential for community pharmacist prescribing in terms of usefulness, pharmacists' confidence, and appropriateness, in the context of asthma management.

METHODS

Twenty community pharmacists were recruited using convenience sampling from a group of trained practitioners who had already delivered asthma services. These pharmacists were asked to complete a scenario-based questionnaire (9 scenarios) modelled on information from real patients. Pharmacist interventions were independently reviewed and rated on their appropriateness according to the Respiratory Therapeutic Guidelines (TG) by three expert researchers.

RESULTS

In seven of nine scenarios (78%), the most common prescribing intervention made by pharmacists agreed with TG recommendations. Although the prescribing intervention was appropriate in the majority of cases, the execution of such interventions was not in line with guidelines (i.e. dosage or frequency) in the majority of scenarios. Due to this, only 47% (76/162) of the interventions overall were considered appropriate. However, pharmacists were deemed to be often following common clinical practice for asthma prescribing. Therefore 81% (132/162) of prescribing interventions were consistent with clinical practice, which is often not guideline driven, indicating a need for specific training in prescribing according to guidelines. Pharmacists reported that they were confident in making prescribing interventions and that this would be very useful in their management of the patients in the scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Community pharmacists may be able to prescribe asthma medications appropriately to help achieve good outcomes for their patients. However, further training in the guidelines for prescribing are required if pharmacists are to support asthma management in this way.

Smoking and use of primary care services: findings from a population-based cohort study linked with administrative claims data

Background

Available evidence suggests that smokers have a lower propensity than others to use primary care services. But previous studies have incorporated only limited adjustment for confounding and mediating factors such as income, access to services and health status. We used data from a large prospective cohort study (the 45 and Up Study), linked to administrative claims data, to quantify the relationship between smoking status and use of primary care services, including specific preventive services, in a contemporary Australian population.

Methods

Baseline questionnaire data from the 45 and Up Study were linked to administrative claims (Medicare) data for the 12-month period following study entry. The main outcome measures were Medicare benefit claimed for unreferred services, out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) paid, and claims for specific preventive services (immunisations, health assessments, chronic disease management services, PSA tests and Pap smears). Rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a hierarchical series of models, adjusted for predisposing, access- and health-related factors. Separate hurdle (two part) regression models were constructed for Medicare benefit and OOPC. Poisson models with robust error variance were used to model use of each specific preventive service.

Results

Participants included 254,382 people aged 45 years and over of whom 7.3% were current smokers. After adjustment for predisposing, access- and health-related factors, current smokers were very slightly less likely to have claimed Medicare benefit than never smokers. Among those who claimed benefit, current smokers claimed similar total benefit, but recent quitters claimed significantly greater benefit, compared to never-smokers. Current smokers were around 10% less likely than never smokers to have paid any OOPC. Current smokers were 15-20% less likely than never smokers to use immunisations, Pap smears and prostate specific antigen tests.

Conclusions

Current smokers were less likely than others to use primary care services that incurred out of pocket costs, and specific preventive services. This was independent of a wide range of predisposing, access- and health-related factors, suggesting that smokers have a lower propensity to seek health care. Smokers may be missing out on preventive services from which they would differentially benefit.