Search

Background Many patients experienced restricted access to healthcare during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study is among the first to provide systematic evidence on the existence of subjective unmet needs (SUN) in different population groups during the pandemic. Methods Using data on individuals aged 20–64 and living in Austria from the AKCOVID survey (June 2020) and the 'European Social Survey' (2015), SUN were compared between 2015 and 2020, either related to the pandemic (fear of infection, provider closed or treatment postponed) or not (barriers related to knowledge, affordability, time and reachability). Multinomial logistic regression models identified determinants of SUN during the pandemic, adjusting for socio-demographics, socio-economic status and self-reported health. Results Shares of the population with SUN in 2020 substantially exceeded SUN in 2015. Excess unmet needs were mostly attributable to the pandemic. Postponed treatments and closed providers were the most important reasons for SUN in June 2020. Older age groups (50–64 years), inactive and retired people were most likely to report pandemic-related SUN. We did not find socio-economic differences in pandemic-related SUN. Conclusions The pandemic resulted in a supply-side shock to healthcare, with vulnerabilities emerging especially among older people, people with poor health and/or people no longer active on the labour market. Further research could focus on health system resilience and the possibilities to improve management of healthcare services during pandemics without widening inequalities while maintaining population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most countries in Europe require out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) for nursing homes based on users' income and often assets. This was also the case in Austria until 2018 when asset-based contributions to residential care —denoted the 'Pflegeregress' – were abolished, leaving a shortfall in revenue. We aim to determine how the Pflegeregress was distributed across different groups in Austria prior to 2018, what the distributional consequences of its abolishment were, and what the distributional impact of different financing alternatives would be. Methods: Circumventing data availability issues, we construct a micro-simulation model using a matched administrative dataset on residential care users receiving the Austrian care allowance (Pflegegeldinformation, PFIF, HVB, and Pflegedienstleistungsstatistik, Statistik Austria) and survey data (SHARE, wave 6). Using this model, we estimate the expected duration of residential care and OPPs under the Pflegeregress of a representative sample of older people aged 65 + in Austria, as well as OPPs under budgetary neutral financing alternatives to the abolished asset-based contribution, namely an inheritance tax and a social insurance scheme. The distributional impact of abolishing the Pflegeregress and these alternative scenarios is assessed through a number of measures, such as ability to pay, Concentration Indices (CI) and a needs-standardized measure. Results: We find that lower income individuals and homeowners disproportionately contributed to asset-based OPPs for residential care prior to 2018, due in large part to their higher use of residential care and the low asset-exemption thresholds. These groups were therefore the largest beneficiaries of its abolishment. The alternative financing scenarios tested would result in a more progressive distribution of payments (i.e. concentrated on more affluent individuals). Conclusion: Our findings indicate the limited ability of asset-based OPPs to target those with higher assets, thus questioning the fairness of these instruments for financing residential care facilities for older people in Austria. Findings also suggest that the parameterization of such OPPs (such as asset exemption thresholds) and patterns of residential care use are key variables for assessing the distribution of asset-based OPPs for residential care use. Policy alternatives that decouple payments from use would entail greater transfers from healthy to less healthier individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The examination of obesity trends is important to plan public health interventions specific to target-groups. We investigated long-term trends of obesity for the Austrian adult population between 1973 and 2014 according to their sex, age and education and the magnitude of educational-inequalities. Methods Data were derived from six national, representative, cross-sectional interview surveys (N = 194 030). Data correction factors for self-reported body mass index (BMI) were applied. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. Absolute changes (ACs) and aetiologic fractions (AFs) were calculated to identify trends in the obesity prevalence. To measure the extent of social inequality, the relative index of inequality was computed based on educational levels. Results In 2014, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity was 14.6% (95%CI: 14.0–15.3) for women and 16.8% (95%CI: 16.1–17.9) for men. Obesity was most prevalent among subjects aged 55–74 years and those with low educational status. The AC in the obesity prevalence during the study period was highest for men aged 75 years and older with high/middle educational levels (16.2%) and also high for subjects aged 55 years and older with low educational levels. The greatest dynamics for obesity were observed among the oldest men with high/middle educational levels. Educational inequalities for obesity were higher among women, but only increased among men. Conclusions Since 1973, the prevalence for obesity was observed to be higher for men than women in Austria for the first time. Men showed the greatest increase in prevalence and risk for obesity during the study period. Further studies are needed to determine the drivers behind these trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]