Search

This study investigated the effect of economic vulnerability on unmet needs during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in Europe among adults aged 50 years and older using data from the regular administration of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and the specific telephone survey administered regarding COVID-19 (SHARE Corona Survey). It addressed three main research questions: Did people who were in difficult economic situations before the epidemic face more barriers to accessing healthcare than others? If so, to what extent can these discrepancies be attributed to initial differences in health status, use of care, income or education between vulnerable individuals and non-vulnerable individuals or to differential effects of the pandemic on these groups? Did the effect of economic vulnerability with regard to unmet needs during the pandemic differ across countries? Unmet healthcare needs are characterised by three types of behaviours likely to be induced by the pandemic: forgoing care for fear of contracting COVID-19, having pre-scheduled care postponed and being unable to obtain medical appointments or treatments when needed. Our results substantiate the existence of significant differences in accessing healthcare during the pandemic according to economic vulnerability and of cumulative effects of economic and medical vulnerabilities: the impact of economic vulnerability is notably stronger among those who were in poor health before the outbreak and thus the oldest individuals. The cross-country comparison highlighted heterogeneous effects of economic vulnerability on forgoing care and having care postponed among countries, which are not comparable to the initial cross-country differences in social inequalities in access to healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promoting equity in healthcare use requires to respect both principles of horizontal equity, that guarantees everyone the same use of healthcare for a given level of need, and vertical equity, that requires the sickest to receive more care than others, in a proportion deemed appropriate. This study explores the extent to which horizontal and vertical equity in healthcare use among individuals aged 50+ in Europe has been restructured during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the variance as an inequality measure, we assess horizontal equity in healthcare use based on the fairness gap approach and propose two new measures of vertical equity. The sample includes 24,965 respondents of the SHARE survey from 18 European countries, who participated in wave 8 just before the pandemic and the second SHARE Corona survey in 2021. These data provide information on use of physician and hospital care over the year for each period, as well as on a wide range of health and socio-economic variables. Although pro-rich inequities in healthcare use were observed in some countries before the outbreak, our results do not reveal any significant evolution in horizontal equity during the pandemic. Conversely, vertical equity in healthcare use would have significantly declined in most countries, especially in Central or Eastern Europe. Telemedicine appears to have played a protective role against this decline in vertical equity in countries where it was heavily used during the pandemic. Our results support the case for public policies aimed at restoring access to care for individuals with the highest needs. • "Pro-rich" horizontal inequity in healthcare use before Covid-19 in Europe. • No significant change in horizontal equity in healthcare use with the pandemic. • The normative issue of vertical equity is addressed with simple empirical measures. • Vertical equity in healthcare use has declined with the pandemic in Europe. • Telemedicine has played a protective role against the decline in vertical equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appendectomy is a common and relatively simple procedure to remove an inflamed appendix, but the rate of appendectomy varies widely across Europe. This paper investigates factors that explain differences in resource use for appendectomy. We analysed 106,929 appendectomy patients treated in 939 hospitals in 10 European countries. In stage 1, we tested the performance of three models in explaining variation in the (log of) cost of the inpatient stay (seven countries) or length of stay (three countries). The first model used only the diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) to which patients were coded, the second model used a core set of general patient-level and appendectomy-specific variables, and the third model combined both sets of variables. In stage two, we investigated hospital-level variation. In classifying appendectomy patients, most DRG systems take account of complex diagnoses and comorbidities but use different numbers of DRGs (range: 2 to 8). The capacity of DRGs and patient-level variables to explain patient-level cost variation ranges from 34% in Spain to over 60% in England and France. All DRG systems can make better use of administrative data such as the patient's age, diagnoses and procedures, and all countries have outlying hospitals that could improve their management of resources for appendectomy., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Childbirth is one of the main causes of hospitalisation for women, accounting for about 5% of hospital activity in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We analysed the factors that explain variations in resource use for child delivery in ten European countries. We compared the performance of three models for explaining the variations in resource use (log cost or length of inpatient stay) at patient and hospital level. The first model used only the DRGs to which child deliveries were coded (M(D) ), the second used a set of 'patient-level' and delivery specific explanatory variables (M(P) ), and the third model combined both sets of variables (M(F) ). Countries vary both in the number of DRGs and the criteria used to classify cases of child delivery (range: 3-8) and in the percentage of deliveries classified as 'delivery without complication' (range: 53-90%). The capacity of DRGs and patient level variables to explain cost variation for child birth ranges from 48% in Sweden to over 70% in Spain. There is room for improving current DRG classification in most countries, but this does not necessary imply multiplying the groups and/or complicating criteria. Countries with a higher number of DRGs do not always perform better., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To assess international comparability of general cost of illness (COI) studies and to examine the extent to which COI estimates differ and why., Methods: Five general COI studies were examined. COI estimates were classified by health provider using the system of health accounts (SHA). Provider groups fully included in all studies and matching SHA estimates were selected to create a common data set. In order to explain cost differences descriptive analyses were carried out on a number of determinants., Results: In general similar COI patterns emerged for these countries, despite their health care system differences. In addition to these similarities, certain significant disease-specific differences were found. Comparisons of nursing and residential care expenditure by disease showed major variation. Epidemiological explanations of differences were hardly found, whereas demographic differences were influential. Significant treatment variation appeared from hospital data., Conclusions: A systematic analysis of COI data from different countries may assist in comparing health expenditure internationally. All cost data dimensions shed greater light on the effects of health care system differences within various aspects of health care. Still, the study's objectives can only be reached by a further improvement of the SHA, by international use of the SHA in COI studies and by a standardized methodology.