Economic Accessibilty to Healthcare: Is it an Issue in our Publicly-Funded Health System?
-
Upload
beau-wooten -
Category
Documents
-
view
26 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Economic Accessibilty to Healthcare: Is it an Issue in our Publicly-Funded Health System?
Economic Accessibilty to Healthcare: Is it an Issue in our Publicly-Funded Health System?
Jeannie Haggerty, PhDSt. Mary’s Research Centre
McGill Research Chair in Family & Community Medicine at St. Mary’s
Accessibility in Canada
Commonwealth and Statistics Canada surveys indicate that healthcare accessibility has declined in Canada
We now rank lowest among peer countries for primary care accessibility
Improving accessibility has been a major policy focus in Canada; focus on wait times.
Economic accessibility is off the radar
Canada Health Act
National principles for public health care insurance plans to qualify for full federal cash transfers for health
Public administration, universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility
Accessibility: Insured persons must have reasonable and uniform access to services, free of financial and other barriers.
Accessibility: Definition Characteristics of health systems that
impede or promote the utilisation of services (Donabedian).
Characteristics of geographic availability, organisational processes, costs and acceptability that facilitate people’s capacity to reach and use services (Thomas & Penchansky) Geographic accessibility Organisatonal accessibility Economic accessibility Cultural accessibility
Economic accessibility
The extent to which direct and indirect costs represent barriers for people to reach and use health services that they need.
Accessibility: core attribute of primary health care First Contact Accessibility: The ease with which a
person can obtain needed care (including advice and support) from the practitioner of choice within a time frame appropriate to the urgency of the problem
Accessibility-accommodation: The way primary healthcare resources are organized to accommodate a wide range of patients’ abilities to contact healthcare providers and reach healthcare services (telephone services, flexible appointment systems, hours of operation, and walk-in periods).
Accessibility: a counter-intuitive finding
2002 multilevel survey of primary health care practice, Quebec
100 sites, randomly selected: data from clinics, physicians, patients
Stratified geographically: metropolitan, suburban, rural, remote
Stratified by pratice type: community health clinic, group clinics, solo practice
Haggerty, Pineault, Gauthier et al, Multi-level PHC survey, 2002-2004, CHSRF funded
Accessibility: a counter-intuitive finding
Patient-reported accessibility improves with increasing rurality First contact – higher confidence in being
seen within one day Accommodation – better ratings of
location, opening hours, wait times, ability to speak to doctor by phone
Yet: longer distances, fewer local alternatives, restricted physician availability.
Explanatory hypotheses: A programme of research
The way rural services are organized makes them more accessible Types of organizational models Professional practices
Measurement artefact Expectations are lower in rural areas Tools not sensitive to rural barriers
Haggerty & Gauthier et al, Accessibility to healtcare for rural and remote communities, 2004-2009, CHSRF funded
Rural-Urban Measures of Accessibility: Objectives
To identify factors in rural areas that facilitate or impede initiation of first-contact care, ongoing primary care, and follow up of referrals to secondary care
To develop and validate additional measurement items of primary and secondary accessibility that are not addressed in existing questionnaires.
Haggerty, Levesque, Roberge. Accessibility Measures, 2005-2010, CHSRF funded
Rural-Urban Measures of Accessibility
Sequential mixed-method study1. Qualitative exploration of urban and
rural care-seeking trajectories2. Development and quantitative
validation of new measures3. Two administrations of measures to
random sample from urban and rural locations
Qualitative exploration of access barriers and facilitators in rural and urban contexts :Phase 1, 2004, Qualitative study
To identify factors in rural areas that facilitate or impede initiation of first-contact care, follow up of referrals to secondary care, and ongoing primary care
Qualitative exploration Focus groups Geographic contexts: two types of urban,
two types of rural Metropolitan (4), towns (2) Rural agricultural (2), scattered villages (3)
Interview schedule: focus on typical care trajectory and responses to barriers; probing for geographic, accommodation, cost and cultural elements
Results:
Major barriers/facilitators to access in typical care-seeking trajectory1. Regular source of care 2. Organizational accommodation3. Geographic access4. Personal resources (economic,
educational)
Consequences of barriers to care
Why is observed accessibiliy better in rural areas?
Social networks in rural areas result in better organizational accommodation and flexibility compared to urban areas
Long wait for appointment is the norm, as is individual accommodation
BUT: processes are not formalized, so not everyone has equal access.
Socio-economic status affects organizational and geographic access
Organizational Accommodation:
Information about the options Role of practice secretary: assess urgency, suggest
care alternatives, give health advice, facilitate Personal information agency : individual’s capacity to
obtain information by own means; independent facilitator for access
Organizational flexibility Secretary accommodates individual requests to make
shorter waits for care: squeeze in between appointments, telephone consultation
Social network matters
Geographic accessibility: getting to care
Expressed in travel time and local availability of alternatives
Perception of distance as a barrier depends on: Personal mobility Personal access to transportation Type of problem Acceptability of provider Other opportunity costs
Not usually an issue in rural areas – except for those with few personal resources
Conclusion:
Low socio-economic status as generic barrier to health services (social exclusion) Low personal information agency Lack of personal transport makes
geographic distance a barrier Restricted social network reduces
organizational accommodation Indirect and direct costs impede care
Conclusion
Persons at risk of social exclusion are also at risk of poor accessibility
In Canada, little exploration of economic barriers to access
Development and quantitative validation of new measures:
To develop and validate additional measurement items of geographic, organizational and economic accessibility that are not addressed in existing questionnaires.
Explore the prevalence of economic barriers to care
Development of new measures Codes for barriers or facilitators from
qualitative analysis developed into quantitative « items »
Consequences, indicators of problem access: nuissance, emergency room, unmet needs, problem aggravation
Telephone administration to 750 respondents in metropolitan rural (Longueuil), agricultural (Montérégie), and remote areas (Côte-Nord)
Validation: analysis Exclusion of bad items (>5% missing, no
variation). Exploratory factor analysis to identify
constructs and sub-scales Predictive modelling against consequences:
nuissance, unmet needs, emergency room use, problem deterioration
Item response modelling to identify discriminatory capacity of items and differential item functioning by rural-urban
Quantitative component: test of new subscales, new instrument
Refinements made in light of analysis and new cognitive testing
Self-administered format Mailed to 368 of previous respondents
who accepted to be contacted (86% responded)
Results Accessibility Measure
Indicators of problem access
Can be divided into minor (nuissance) and major problems
Provide a good portrait of health care accessibility Nuissance Use of emergency room for system
reasons Unmet needs for care Problem aggravation due to delay
Organizational accommodation: Description New items (more discriminating for rural)
Ease of getting information to solve health problems Ease of contacting the clinic by phone Ease of getting medical advice by phone Ease of getting shorter-than-usual wait for appointment for
urgent care Available structures for rapid care Rating of usual wait for appointment Ease of talking to doctor by phone
Each unit increase in accessibility associated with decreased likelihood of Nuissance (OR=0.47) Unmet needs (OR=0.34) Problem aggravation (OR=0.40)
Effect stronger in rural areas
Geographic accessibility: Description 5-items
Perceived proximity of clinic Ease of getting there for urgent care and for routine
care, Travel time Number of local alternatives
Distance to clinic cited as reason for ER use (6%) and unmet need (10%)
Each unit increase in accessibility, decreased likelihood of : Nuissance (OR=0.42) Unmet need (OR=0.44)
Effects stronger in the poor
Prevalence of Economic Barriers
Payment for services (labs, exams or not covered by public insurance 20%
Usually have revenue loss when getting healthcare 22%
Usually have significant indirect costs when getting healthcare 24%
Economic accessibility:
Frequency cost-related unmet needs or difficulty (% ever among all vs. low-income) Don’t take prescribed meds Don’t do lab tests or exams Don’t get uninsured services Difficulty from income loss Difficuty from indirect costs
Items scored dichotomously (never vs. ever) and summed to indicate number of problems (range 0 to 5)
Economic Accessibility: Each unit increase in reported cost problem
(poor economic accessibility) associated with increased likelihood of: Nuissance: OR=1.8 (1.5 in poor) ER use: OR=1.9 (2.4 in poor) Unmet neet: OR=2.8 (3.3 in poor) Problem aggravation: OR=3.4 (5.9 in poor)
Examination of economic accessibility in an independent sample
Cohort of approximately 2500 adults in four Quebec local health networks, 2010.Compare poor and non-poor
Haggerty & Fortin, At the interface of the community and the Health system, 2008-2013, CIHR
Measure of self-perceived financial status
What word best describes your current financial situation
Very comfortable Comfortable Tight Very tight Poor
« poor »Bottom 25%
Health Status of poor vs. Non-poor
Poor Non-poor
Number of chronic illnesses 3.5 2.5
3+ chronic illness 56% 44%
Functional health status
Physical component 44 49
Mental component 45 50
Prevalence of cost related unmet needs: poor vs non-poor
Experienced difficulties in access because of costs
Poor Non-poor
Don’t take prescribed meds 18% 5%
Don’t do lab tests or exams 10% 4%
Don’t get uninsured services 25% 13%
Difficulty from income loss 21% 8%
Difficulty from indirect costs
13% 3%
80% of poor report at least one vs. 20% of non-poor
Indicators of problem access: Nuissance
Did you have to make several attempts to get the healthcare you needed?
But poor experienced lower organizational accessibility.
Poor Non-poor
Never 39% 47%
Rarely 47% 43%
Sometimes/often 14% 10%
Indicators of problem access: Use of Emergency room in last year
32% overall 16% for system-related reasons only
20% poor vs. 15% non-poor Top reasons (rank order)
No family physician or own not available Clinic not open when I could go Difficult to get appointment or wait too
long To get tests or see specialist within
reasonable time
Indicators of problem access:Unmet needs for care
Needed healthcare but didn’t get it 21% overall
17% poor vs 14% non-poor
Top reasons (rank order) Wait for appointment too long Difficult to make appointment Regular doctor or clinic not available Clinic hours not convenient
Indicators of problem access:Problem aggravation
Health problem became more serious because it took a long time to get healthcare
9% overall 15% poor vs. 7% non-poor
30% with at least one major access problem (ER use, unmet need, problem aggravation) 37% poor vs. 28% non-poor
Findings are coherent with other studies Commonwealth Survey 2001
Difficulty getting care off-hours, 19% poor vs. 13% non-poor
Difficulty seeing specialist 20% poor vs. 15% non-poor
Did not fill a prescription 22% poor vs. 7% nonpoor
Did not get needed dental 42% poor vs. 15% non-poor
Situation may be better in Quebec for some issues
Conclusion Accessibility to healthcare has
declined in Canada Our study confirms this
Policy focus is on organizational accessibility
BUT important inequities in access persist The poor get systematically poorer
access to health services
Accessibility: the Canada Health Act
In Quebec’s public insurance system, poor people face more financial, geographic and organizational barriers to getting timely services despite having greater health needs
We are not achieving uniform access to services as per the Canada Health Act
Liberalization of the CHA framework unfairly affects the poor
Conclusion and Implication
Economic accessibility IS an issue in our publicly-funded system
To make this a policy focus, we need to shake the myth that we have solved the problem of economic accessibility for necessary medical services in Canada
We need to evaluate the performance of the system in how well it does for those with limited ability to advocate for themselves