Search

Although we do know that out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure is relatively high in Australia, little is known about what health conditions are associated with the highest out-of-pocket expenditure, and whether the cost of healthcare acts as a barrier to care for people with different chronic conditions. Cross-sectional analysis using linear and logistic regression models applied to the Commonwealth Fund international health policy survey of adults aged 18 years and over was conducted in 2013. Adults with asthma, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) had 109% higher household out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure than did those with no health condition (95% CI: 50-193%); and adults with depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions had 95% higher household out-of-pocket expenditure (95% CI: 33-187%). People with a chronic condition were also more likely to forego care because of cost. People with depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions had 7.65 times higher odds of skipping healthcare (95% CI: 4.13-14.20), and people with asthma, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had 6.16 times higher odds of skipping healthcare (95% CI: 3.30-11.50) than did people with no health condition. People with chronic health conditions in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland were all significantly less likely to skip healthcare because of cost than were people with a condition in Australia. The out-of-pocket cost of healthcare in Australia acts as a barrier to accessing treatment for people with chronic health conditions, with people with mental health conditions being likely to skip care. Attention should be given to the accessibility and affordability of mental health services in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite significant investments to support primary care internationally, income-based inequities in access to quality health care are present in many high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether low- and middle-income groups are more likely to report poor quality of primary care (PC) than high-income groups cross-nationally. Methods: The 2011 Commonwealth Fund Telephone Survey of Sicker Adults is a cross-sectional study across eleven countries. Respondents were recruited from randomly selected households. We used data from surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identified all questions relating to primary care performance, and categorized these into five dimensions: 1) access to care, 2) coordination 3) patient-centered care, and 4) technical quality of care. We used logistic regression with low and middle-income as the comparison groups and high-income as the referent. Results: Fourteen thousand two hundred sixty-two respondents provided income data. Countries varied considerably in their extent of income disparity. Overall, 24.7% were categorized as low- and 13.9% as high-income. The odds of reporting poor access to care were higher for low- and middle-income than high-income respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US. Similar results were found for Sweden and Norway on coordination; the opposite trend favoring the low- and middle-income groups was found in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The odds of reporting poor patient-centered care were higher for low-income than high-income respondents in the Netherlands, Norway, and the US; in Australia, this was true for low- and middle-income respondents. On technical quality of care, the odds of reporting poor care were higher for the low- and middle-income comparisons in Canada and Norway; in Germany, the odds were higher for low-income respondents only. The odds of reporting poor technical quality of care were higher for high-income than low-income respondents in the Netherlands. Conclusion: Inequities in quality PC for low and middle income groups exist on at least one dimension in all countries, including some that in theory provide universal access. More research is needed to fully understand equity in the PC sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disparities in access to primary care (PC) have been demonstrated within and between health systems. However, few studies have assessed the factors associated with multiple barriers to access occurring along the care-seeking process in different healthcare systems. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Adults, access was represented through participant responses to questions relating to access barriers either before or after reaching the PC practice in 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and United States). The number of respondents in each country ranged from 1000 to 7000 and the response rates ranged from 11% to 47%. We used multivariable logistic regression models within each of eleven countries to identify disparities in response to the access barriers by age, sex, immigrant status, income and the presence of chronic conditions. Results: Overall, one in five adults (21%) experienced multiple barriers before reaching PC practices. After reaching care, an average of 16% of adults had two or more barriers. There was a sixfold difference between nations in the experience of these barriers to access. Vulnerable groups experiencing multiple barriers were relatively consistent across countries. People with lower income were more likely to experience multiple barriers, particularly before reaching primary care practices. Respondents with mental health problems and those born outside the country displayed substantial vulnerability in terms of barriers after reaching care. Conclusion: A greater understanding of the multiple barriers to access to PC across the stages of the care-seeking process may help to inform planning and performance monitoring of disparities in access. Variation across countries may reveal organisational and system drivers of access, and inform efforts to improve access to PC for vulnerable groups. The cumulative nature of these barriers remains to be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]