Association between Types of Usual Source of Care and User Perception of Overall Health Care Service Quality in Korea

Types of usual sources of care and their association with healthcare outcomes among cancer survivors: a Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) study

PURPOSE

To assess associations between usual source of care (USC) type and health status, healthcare access, utilization, and expenses among adult cancer survivors.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional analysis using 2013-2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey included 2690 observations representing 31,953,477 adult cancer survivors who were currently experiencing cancer and reporting one of five USC types: solo practicing physician (SPP), a specific person in a non-hospital facility, a specific person in a hospital-based facility, a non-hospital facility, and a hospital-based facility. We used logistic regressions and generalized linear models to determine associations of USC type with health status, healthcare access, utilization, and expenses, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

All non-SPP USC types were associated with reporting more difficulties contacting USC by telephone during business hours (p < 0.05). Compared to SPP, non-hospital facility was associated with more difficulty getting needed prescriptions (OR: 1.81, p = 0.036) and higher annual expenses ($5225, p = 0.028), and hospital-based facility was associated with longer travel time (OR: 1.61, p = 048), more ED visits (0.13, p = 0.049), higher expenses ($6028, p = 0.014), and worse self-reported health status (OR: 1.93, p = 0.001), although both were more likely to open on nights/weekends (p < 0.05). Cancer survivors with a specific person in a hospital-based facility (vs. SPP) as USC were > twofold as likely (p < 0.05) to report difficulty getting needed prescriptions and contacting USC afterhours.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult cancer survivors who were currently experiencing cancer, having a non-SPP type of UCS was associated with reporting more difficulties accessing care, worse health, more ED visits, and higher total expenses.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Transitioning to SPP type of USC may result in better healthcare outcomes.

How do perceptions of public health measures affect experience of unmet healthcare needs among older Korean adults during COVID-19 pandemic?

•

Lack of or inadequate access to needed care may deteriorate health.

•

COVID-19 outbreak may prohibit access to needed care.

•

A poor understanding of public health measures increased unmet healthcare needs.

•

Trust and satisfaction of public health measures were not related to unmet healthcare needs.

•

The findings suggest the importance of effective risk communication.

Increasing difficulties in the use of healthcare services after the COVID-19 outbreak is a major concern as ensuring access to healthcare services is a primary health policy goal. The aim of this study was to examine the impacts of public perceptions regarding COVID-19 related public health measures on older adults’ experience of unmet healthcare needs in Korea. A total of 1961 participants from the Korea Health Care System Performance, over the age of 65, were included in the analyses. Three different logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of public perceptions – understanding, trust and satisfaction- regarding COVID-19 public health measures on unmet healthcare needs. Our results show that a poor understanding of public health measures was associated with higher odds of unmet healthcare needs among Korean older adults (OR:2.65, 95%CI: 1.79–3.94). However, trust and satisfaction of public health measures were not related to unmet healthcare needs. Our findings suggest that the importance of effective risk communication to facilitate better understand quarantine polices rather than emphasizing trust or satisfaction over public health measure.

Public Perspectives on Decisions About Emergency Care Seeking for Care Unrelated to COVID-19 During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

Delaying critical care for treatable conditions owing to fear of contracting COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is associated with avoidable morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and quantify how people decided whether to present to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for care unrelated to COVID-19 using conjoint analysis, a form of trade-off analysis that examines how individuals make complex decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a nationwide sample from June 1, 2020, during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Included participants were adults aged 18 years or older in the US who self-reported that they had not tested positive for COVID-19. Data were analyzed from July 2020 through May 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants completed a self-administered online survey.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Using a choice-based conjoint analysis survey, the relative importance was assessed for the following attributes for individuals in deciding whether to seek ED care for symptoms consistent with myocardial infarction or appendicitis: reduction in chance of dying because of ED treatment, crowdedness of ED with other patients, and chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED. We also performed latent class analyses using conjoint data to identify distinct segments of the respondent population with similar choice patterns. Logistic regression was then used to explore whether patient sociodemographics and political affiliations were factors associated with decision-making.

RESULTS

Among 1981 individuals invited to participate, 933 respondents (47.1%) completed the survey; participants' mean (SD) age was 40.1 (13.0) years, and 491 (52.6%) were women. In latent class analyses, 158 individuals (16.9%) with symptoms of myocardial infarction and 238 individuals (25.5%) with symptoms of appendicitis prioritized avoidance of COVID-19 exposure in the ED (ie, chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED or crowdedness of ED with other patients) over seeking appropriate care for symptoms. Having a usual source of care was a factor associated with lower odds of prioritizing avoidance of COVID-19 exposure (myocardial infarction scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32-0.76]; P = .001; appendicitis scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40-0.82]; P = .003), but most sociodemographic factors and political affiliations were not factors associated with decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that up to one-quarter of individuals were willing to forgo potentially life-saving ED care to avoid exposure to COVID-19. These findings suggest that health care systems and public health organizations should develop effective communications for patients and the community at large that reassure and encourage timely health care for critical needs during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other scenarios.