Patients with Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

U.S. guidelines recommend that patients with severe asthma be referred to specialists (allergists/immunologists or pulmonologists) for systematic assessment or comanagement; however, contemporary, real-world data on the frequency and impact of specialist care among U.S. severe asthma patients are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the frequency of asthma specialist visits among U.S. patients with severe asthma, identify patient demographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist visits and describe health outcomes following specialist care.

METHODS

Severe asthma patients aged 6 years or older were identified between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, in the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database of commercially insured individuals, based on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) criteria and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4 or 5 treatment regimens. The frequency of asthma specialist (allergist/immunologist or pulmonologist) visits was described over 2 years. Patient characteristics associated with having 1 or more specialist visits were analyzed using multivariate regressions. Asthma exacerbations and health care resource utilization before and after specialist visit were compared.

RESULTS

Of 54,332 patients identified, 38.2% had 1 or more specialist visits over 2 years. Patient characteristics predictive of specialist visits were asthma exacerbation frequency, younger age, and allergy/respiratory comorbidity burden (all P < .001). Among patients with 1 or more specialist visits, a lower prevalence of asthma exacerbations and rescue inhaler use was observed following the first observed specialist visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist care was observed in fewer than half of U.S. patients with severe asthma and was least frequent among older adult patients and those with more nonrespiratory comorbidities. Increased specialist involvement in managing severe asthma may help improve care and patient outcomes.

Horizontal equity in access to public GP services by socioeconomic group: potential bias due to a compartmentalised approach

Background

Horizontal equity in access to public general practitioner (GP) services by socioeconomic group has been addressed econometrically by testing the statement “equal probability of using public GP services for equal health care needs, regardless of socioeconomic status”. Based on survey data, the conventional approach has been to estimate binomial econometric models in which when the respondent reports having visited a public GP, it counts as 1, otherwise it counts as 0. This is what we call a compartmentalised approach. Those respondents who did not visit a public GP but visited instead another doctor (specialist or private GP) would count as 0 (despite having used instead other modes of health care), thus conclusions of the compartmentalised approach might be biased. In such cases, a multinomial econometric model -that we called comprehensive approach- would be more appropriate to analyse horizontal equity in access to public GP services. The objective of this paper is to test for this potential bias by comparing a compartmentalised and a comprehensive approach, when analysing horizontal equity in access to public GP.

Methods

Using data from the 2016/17 Spanish National Health Survey, we estimate the probability of visiting a public GP as determined by socioeconomic status, health care need and demographic characteristics. We use binomial and multinomial logit and probit models in order to highlight the potential differences in the conclusions regarding socioeconomic inequities in access to public GP services. Socioeconomic status is proxied by education level, social class and employment situation.

Results

Our results show that conclusions are sensitive to the approach selected. Particularly, the horizontal inequity favouring individuals with lower education that resulted from the compartmentalised approach disappears under a comprehensive approach and only a social class effect remains.

Conclusion

An analysis of horizontal equity in access to a particular health care service (like public GP services) undertaken following a compartmentalised approach should be compared with a comprehensive approach in order to test that there is no bias as a consequence of considering as zeros the utilisation of other types of health care.

The association between voluntary work and health care use among older adults in Germany

Objective

While most studies focused on the relation between volunteering and health-related outcomes, little attention has been given on the association between volunteering and the use of health care services. Thus, with this analysis we aimed at exploring whether and how the voluntary work of older adults is related to the utilization of health care services in Germany.

Methods

The analysis was based on data from the German Ageing Survey (DEAS), a nationally representative, longitudinal study of the German population aged 40 years and older. Focusing on volunteering, data from the waves 2002, 2008 and 2011 was used. Voluntary work in groups and organizations (yes/no) was used as explanatory variable. To quantify health care utilization, visits to general practitioners and specialists as well as nights in the hospital in the past 12 months were used. Fixed effects regressions were applied to estimate the association between volunteering and the outcome variables.

Results

Regressions revealed that the onset of volunteer involvement was associated with an increase in specialist visits, whereas volunteering did not affect visits to general practitioners and the probability of hospitalization significantly.

Conclusion

Our findings emphasize the relation between volunteering and specialist visits. Future research is needed to examine the impact of volunteering on health care use, taking more detailed information regarding the specific context of volunteering as well as personality factors and personal background into consideration. This might be reasonable in advancing the knowledge about this association and in developing planned interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3867-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Socioeconomic status and waiting times for health services: An international literature review and evidence from the Italian National Health System

In the absence of priority criteria, waiting times are an implicit rationing instrument where the absence or limited use of prices creates an excess of demand. Even in the presence of priority criteria, waiting times may be unfair because they reduce health care demand of patients in lower socio-economic conditions due to high opportunity costs of time or a decay in their health level. Significant evidence has shown a relationship between socioeconomic status and the length of waiting time. The first phase of the study involved an extensive review of the existent literature for the period of 2002-2016 in the main databases (Scopus, PubMed and Science Direct). Twenty-eight met the eligibility criteria. The 27 papers were described and classified. The e mpirical objective of this study was to determine whether socioeconomic characteristics affect waiting time for different health services in the Italian national health system. The services studied were specialist visits, diagnostics tests and elective surgeries. A classification tree and logistic regression models were implemented. Data from the 2013 Italian Health National Survey were used. The analysis found heterogeneous results for different types of service. Individuals with lower education and economic resources have a higher risk of experiencing excessive waiting times for diagnostic and specialist visits. For elective surgery, socioeconomic inequalities are present but appear to be lower.