Effects of the Blair/Brown NHS reforms on socioeconomic equity in health care

Socioeconomic inequality, waiting time initiatives and austerity in Scotland: an interrupted time series analysis of elective hip and knee replacements and arthroscopies

OBJECTIVES

National Health Service (NHS) waiting times have long been a political priority in Scotland. In 2002, the Scottish government launched a programme of investment and reform to reduce waiting times. The effect on waiting time inequality is unknown as is the impact of subsequent austerity measures.

DESIGN

An interrupted time series analysis between the most and least socioeconomically deprived population quintiles since the introduction of waiting time initiative 1 July 2002 and austerity measures 1 April 2010.

SETTING

All NHS-funded elective primary hip replacement, primary knee replacement and arthroscopy patient data in Scotland from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

NHS Scotland funded patients treated in Scotland.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Trends and changes in mean waiting time.

RESULTS

There were 135,176, 122,883 and 173,976 NHS funded hip replacement, knee replacement and arthroscopy patients, respectively, in Scotland between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2019. From 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2010, waiting time inequality between the most and least deprived patients fell and increased thereafter. For hip replacements before 1 July 2002, waiting time inequality increased 1.07 days per quarter; this changed at 1 July 2002 with significant slope change of -2.32 (-3.53, -1.12) days resulting in a decreasing rate of inequality of -1.26 days per quarter. On 1 April 2010 the slope changed significantly by 1.84 (0.90, 2.78) days restoring increasing inequality at 0.58 days per quarter. Knee replacements and arthroscopies had similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

The waiting time initiative in Scotland is associated with a reduction in waiting time inequality benefiting the most socioeconomically deprived patients. Austerity measures may be reversing these gains.

Comparative morbidities and the share of emergencies in hospital admissions in deprived areas: a method and evidence from English administrative data

OBJECTIVE

Various studies find that the share of emergencies in hospital admissions is higher in deprived areas, but both the explanation and policy implications are unclear. We estimate the extent to which this finding is due to a different disease mix in deprived areas, rather than other explanations such as patient behaviour and general practitioner effectiveness.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis using English Hospital Episode Statistics data, with disease for elective and emergency admissions in 2008/2009 coded at 186 blocks or 1230 categories and aggregated to lower layer super output area of residence. It is then linked to an appropriate measure of deprivation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The difference in the share of emergencies in hospital admissions between communities in the highest and lowest deciles of deprivation; and the percentage of this difference that is explained if areas in the least deprived decile have the same disease mix as those in the most deprived decile.

RESULTS

Using the finest disease classification scheme (1230 categories), 71% of the higher share of admissions that were emergencies in decile 1 areas relative to decile 10, is explained by the "adverse" case mix (CM) in deprived areas. The remainder reflects the higher relative use of emergency care in deprived areas for the same conditions. Higher incidence of respiratory and circulatory diseases in deprived areas explains about 30% of the CM contribution. Diseases of the digestive system and abdomen have a high relative use of emergency care in deprived areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher use of emergency care in deprived areas is primarily a symptom of the higher prevalence of diseases which have high national rates of emergency to elective care-especially respiratory diseases-rather than an indication of less effective primary care. Nevertheless, there is a higher share of emergency care in admissions in deprived areas for several diseases, most notably of the digestive system.

Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare: Does choice explain the gradient?

Equity of access is a key policy objective in publicly-funded healthcare systems. However, observed inequalities of access by socioeconomic status may result from differences in patients' choices. Using data on non-emergency coronary revascularisation procedures in the English National Health Service, we found substantive differences in waiting times within public hospitals between patients with different socioeconomic status: up to 35% difference, or 43 days, between the most and least deprived population quintile groups. Using selection models with differential distances as identification variables, we estimated that only up to 12% of these waiting time inequalities can be attributed to patients' choices of hospital and type of treatment (heart bypass versus stent). Residual inequality, after allowing for choice, was economically significant: patients in the least deprived quintile group benefited from shorter waiting times and the associated health benefits were worth up to £850 per person.

Cooperate! A paradigm shift for health equity

The role of competition and cooperation in relation to the goal of health equity is examined in this paper. The authors explain why the win-lose mentality associated with avoidable competition is ethically questionable and less effective than cooperation in achieving positive outcomes, particularly as it relates to health and health equity. Competition, which differentiates winners from losers, often with the winner-takes-all reward system, inevitably leads to a few winners and many losers, resulting in social inequality, which, in turn, engenders and perpetuates health inequity.Competitive market-driven approaches to healthcare-brought about by capitalism, neo-liberalization, and globalization, based primarily on a competitive framework-are shown to have contributed to growing inequities with respect to the social determinants of health, and have undermined equal opportunity to access health care and achieve health equity. It is possible to redistribute income and wealth to reduce social inequality, but globalization poses increasing challenges to policy makers. John Stuart Mill provided a passionate, philosophical defense of cooperatives, followed by Karl Polanyi who offered an insightful critique of both state socialism and especially the self-regulating market, thereby opening up the cooperative way of shaping the future. We cite Hannah Arendt's "the banality of evil" to characterize the tragic concept of "ethical fading" witnessed in business and everyday life all over the world, often committed (without thinking and reflecting) by ordinary people under competitive pressures.To promote equity in health for all, we recommend the adoption of a radically new cooperation paradigm, applied whenever possible, to everything in our daily lives.

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background

Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them.

Objectives

The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format.

Design

Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level.

Setting

England from 2001/2 to 2011/12.

Participants

A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people.

Main outcome measures

Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality.

Data sources

Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8).

Results

Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark.

Limitations

General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible.

Conclusions

NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people.

Future work

Exploration of quality improvement lessons from local areas performing well and badly on health-care equity, improved methods including better measures of need and risk and measures of health-care inequality over the life-course, and monitoring of other dimensions of equity. These indicators can also be used to evaluate the health-care equity impacts of interventions and make international health-care equity comparisons.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Evaluating Labour's market reforms, 2002-10

Starting in 2002, the UK Labour government of 1997-2010 introduced a series of changes to the National Health Service (NHS) in England designed to increase individual NHS patient choice of place of elective hospital care and competition among public and private providers of elective hospital services for NHS-funded patients. In 2006, the Department of Health initiated the Health Reform Evaluation Programme (HREP) to assess the impact of the changes. The changes broadly had the effects that proponents had predicted but the effects were mostly modest. Most of the undesirable impacts feared by critics appeared not to have materialized to any discernible extent, at least by early in 2010. Labour's market appeared to have generated stronger incentives for quality and efficiency than its 1990 s predecessor with no obvious detriment to equity of access. However, this high level conclusion conceals a far more nuanced and complex picture of both the process of implementation and the impact of the changes, as the papers in this supplement drawn from the HREP show.