Search

An inverse care law persists in almost all low-income and middle-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive less, and lower-quality, health care despite having greater need. By contrast, a disproportionate care law persists in high-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive more health care, but of worse quality and insufficient quantity to meet their additional needs. Both laws are caused not only by financial barriers and fragmented health insurance systems but also by social inequalities in care seeking and co-investment as well as the costs and benefits of health care. Investing in more integrated universal health coverage and stronger primary care, delivered in proportion to need, can improve population health and reduce health inequality. However, trade-offs sometimes exist between health policy objectives. Health-care technologies, policies, and resourcing should be subjected to distributional analysis of their equity impacts, to ensure the objective of reducing health inequalities is kept in sight., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Equity of access is a key policy objective in publicly-funded healthcare systems. However, observed inequalities of access by socioeconomic status may result from differences in patients' choices. Using data on non-emergency coronary revascularisation procedures in the English National Health Service, we found substantive differences in waiting times within public hospitals between patients with different socioeconomic status: up to 35% difference, or 43 days, between the most and least deprived population quintile groups. Using selection models with differential distances as identification variables, we estimated that only up to 12% of these waiting time inequalities can be attributed to patients' choices of hospital and type of treatment (heart bypass versus stent). Residual inequality, after allowing for choice, was economically significant: patients in the least deprived quintile group benefited from shorter waiting times and the associated health benefits were worth up to £850 per person., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives Reducing health inequalities is an explicit goal of England's health system. Our aim was to compare the performance of English local administrative areas in reducing socioeconomic inequality in emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive chronic conditions. Methods We used local authority area as a stable proxy for health and long-term care administrative geography between 2004/5 and 2011/12. We linked inpatient hospital activity, deprivation, primary care, and population data to small area neighbourhoods (typical population 1500) within administrative areas (typical population 250,000). We measured absolute inequality gradients nationally and within each administrative area using neighbourhood-level linear models of the relationship between national deprivation and age-sex-adjusted emergency admission rates. We assessed local equity performance by comparing local inequality against national inequality to identify areas significantly more or less equal than expected; evaluated stability over time; and identified where equity performance was steadily improving or worsening. We then examined associations between change in socioeconomic inequalities and change in within-area deprivation (gentrification). Finally, we used administrative area-level random and fixed effects models to examine the contribution of primary care to inequalities in admissions. Results Data on 316 administrative areas were included in the analysis. Local inequalities were fairly stable between consecutive years, but 32 areas (10%) showed steadily improving or worsening equity. In the 21 improving areas, the gap between most and least deprived fell by 3.9 admissions per 1000 (six times the fall nationally) between 2004/5 and 2011/12, while in the 11 areas worsening, the gap widened by 2.4. There was no indication that measured improvements in local equity were an artefact of gentrification or that changes in primary care supply or quality contributed to changes in inequality. Conclusions Local equity performance in reducing inequality in emergency admissions varies both geographically and over time. Identifying this variation could provide insights into which local delivery strategies are most effective in reducing such inequalities.

Background: Provision of universal coverage is essential for achieving equity in healthcare, but inequalities still exist in universal healthcare systems. Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, which has provided universal coverage since 1948, made sustained efforts to reduce health inequalities by strengthening primary care. We provide the first comprehensive assessment of trends in socioeconomic inequalities of primary care access, quality and outcomes during this period., Methods: Whole-population small area longitudinal study based on 32 482 neighbourhoods of approximately 1500 people in England from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012. We measured slope indices of inequality in four indicators: (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) preventable emergency hospital admissions and (4) mortality from conditions considered amenable to healthcare., Results: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, there were larger absolute improvements on all indicators in more-deprived neighbourhoods. The modelled gap between the most-deprived and least-deprived neighbourhoods in England decreased by: 193 patients per family doctor (95% CI 173 to 213), 3.29 percentage points of primary care quality (3.13 to 3.45), 0.42 preventable hospitalisations per 1000 people (0.29 to 0.55) and 0.23 amenable deaths per 1000 people (0.15 to 0.31). By 2011/2012, inequalities in primary care supply and quality were almost eliminated, but socioeconomic inequality was still associated with 158 396 preventable hospitalisations and 37 983 deaths amenable to healthcare., Conclusions: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the NHS succeeded in substantially reducing socioeconomic inequalities in primary care access and quality, but made only modest reductions in healthcare outcome inequalities., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To model the social distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in England by combining survey data on health-related quality of life with administrative data on mortality., Methods: Health Survey for England data sets for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were pooled (n = 35,062) and used to model health-related quality of life as a function of sex, age, and socioeconomic status (SES). Office for National Statistics mortality rates were used to construct life tables for age-sex-SES groups. These quality-of-life and length-of-life estimates were then combined to predict QALE as a function of these characteristics. Missing data were imputed, and Monte-Carlo simulation was used to estimate standard errors. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore alternative regression models and measures of SES., Results: Socioeconomic inequality in QALE at birth was estimated at 11.87 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a sex difference of 1 QALY. When the socioeconomic-sex subgroups are ranked by QALE, a differential of 10.97 QALYs is found between the most and least healthy quintile groups. This differential can be broken down into a life expectancy difference of 7.28 years and a quality-of-life adjustment of 3.69 years., Conclusions: The methods proposed in this article refine simple binary quality-adjustment measures such as the widely used disability-free life expectancy, providing a more accurate picture of overall health inequality in society than has hitherto been available. The predictions also lend themselves well to the task of evaluating the health inequality impact of interventions in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: People in disadvantaged areas are more likely to have an avoidable emergency hospital admission. Socio-economic inequality in avoidable emergency hospital admissions is monitored in England. Our aim was to inform local health care purchasing and planning by identifying recent health care system changes (or other factors), as reported by local health system leaders, that might explain narrowing or widening trends. Methods: Case studies were undertaken in one pilot and at five geographically distinct local health care systems (Clinical Commissioning Groups, CCGs), identified as having consistently increasing or decreasing inequality. Local settings were explored through discussions with CCG officials and stakeholders to identify potential local determinants. Data were analysed using a realist evaluation approach to generate context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Results: Of the five geographically distinct CCGs, two had narrowing inequality, two widening, and one narrowing inequality, which widened during the project. None of the CCGs had designed a large-scale package of service changes with the explicit aim of reducing socio-economic inequality in avoidable emergency admissions, and local decision makers were unfamiliar with their own trends. Potential primary and community care determinants included: workforce, case finding and exclusion, proactive care co-ordination for patients with complex needs, and access and quality. Potential commissioning determinants included: data use and incentives, and targeting of services. Other potential determinants included changes in care home services, national A&E targets, and wider issues - such as public services financial constraints, residential gentrification, and health care expectations. Conclusions: We did not find any bespoke initiatives that explained the inequality trends. The trends were more likely due to an interplay of multiple health care and wider system factors. Local decision makers need greater awareness, understanding and support to interpret, use and act upon inequality indicators. They are unlikely to find simple, cheap interventions to reduce inequalities in avoidable emergency admissions. Rather, long-term multifaceted interventions are required that embed inequality considerations into mainstream decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe trends in socioeconomic inequality in the proportion of deaths occurring in hospital, during a period of sustained effort by the NHS in England to improve end of life care. Methods: Whole-population, small area longitudinal study involving 5,260,871 patients of all ages who died in England from 2001/2002 to 2011/2012. Our primary measure of inequality was the slope index of inequality. This represents the estimated gap between the most and least deprived neighbourhood in England, allowing for the gradient in between. Neighbourhoods were geographic Lower Layer Super Output Areas containing about 1500 people each. Results: The overall proportion of patients dying in hospital decreased from 49.5% to 43.6% during the study period, after initially increasing to 52.0% in 2004/2005. There was substantial 'pro-rich' inequality, with an estimated difference of 5.95 percentage points in the proportion of people dying in hospital (confidence interval 5.26 to 6.63), comparing the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in 2011/2012. There was no significant reduction in this gap over time, either in absolute terms or relative to the mean, despite the overall reduction in the proportion of patients dying in hospital. Conclusions: Efforts to reduce the proportion of patients dying in hospital in England have been successful overall but did not reduce inequality. Greater understanding of the reasons for such inequality is required before policy changes can be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health Insurance (HI) programmes in low-income countries aim to reduce the burden of out-of-pocket (OOP) health care expenditure. However, if the decisions to purchase insurance and to seek care when ill are correlated with the expected health care expenditure, the use of naïve regression models may produce biased estimates of the impact of insurance membership on OOP expenditure. Whilst many studies in the literature have accounted for the endogeneity of the insurance decision, the potential selection bias due to the care-seeking decision has not been taken into account. We extend the Heckman selection model to account simultaneously for both care-seeking and insurance-seeking selection biases in the health care expenditure regression model. The proposed model is illustrated in the context of a Vietnamese HI programme using data from a household survey of 1,192 individuals conducted in 1999. Results were compared with those of alternative econometric models making no or partial allowance for selection bias. In this illustrative example, the impact of insurance membership on reducing OOP expenditures was underestimated by 21 percentage points when selection biases were not taken into account. We believe this is an important methodological contribution that will be relevant to future empirical work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcomes of diabetes care are unequal and the NHS has a duty to consider reducing inequality in healthcare outcomes.Aim: To quantify trends in socioeconomic inequality and diabetes outcomes.Design and Setting: Whole-population longitudinal study of 32 482 neighbourhoods (Lower Layer Super Output Areas [LSOAs]) in England between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012.Method: Slope indices of inequality (SIIs) between neighbourhoods of great and little deprivation were measured annually for: glycated haemoglobin control in people with diabetes; emergency hospitalisation for diabetes; and amenable mortality from diabetes.Results: From 2004/2005 to 2011/2012 glycaemic control improved in all social groups, regardless of deprivation level, although inequality was unchanged as measured by the SII (0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.43 to 0.52). Diabetes-related amenable mortality improved in all social groups, but decreased at a faster rate in neighbourhoods of greater deprivation. Inequality in diabetes-related amenable mortality improved, with the SII falling by 2.68 (95% CI = 1.93 to 3.43), resulting in 594 (95% CI = 420 to 767) fewer deaths. In contrast, emergency hospitalisations for diabetes increased in all social groups, with faster growth in neighbourhoods of greater deprivation. The socioeconomic gradient increased with the SII widening by 19.59 admissions for diabetes per 100 000 (95% CI = 16.00 to 23.17), resulting in an increase of 5991 (95% CI = 5084 to 6899) excess admissions associated with socioeconomic inequality during the study period.Conclusion: In diabetes, mortality declined faster, but emergency hospitalisation grew faster in more deprived neighbourhoods. Unequal growth in emergency hospitalisation for diabetes is likely to be partly due to increased diabetes prevalence and patients living longer, but may also be due to overuse of glycaemic control medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews what is known about socio-economic inequalities in health care in England, with particular attention to inequalities relative to need that may be considered unfair ('inequities'). We call inequalities of 5 per cent or less between the most and least deprived socio-economic quintile groups 'slight', inequalities of 5-15 per cent 'moderate' and inequalities of more than 15 per cent 'substantial'. Overall public health care expenditure is substantially concentrated on poorer people. At any given age, poorer people are more likely to see their family doctor, have a public outpatient appointment, visit accident and emergency, and stay in hospital for publicly-funded inpatient treatment. After allowing for current self-assessed health and morbidity, there is slight pro-rich inequity in combined public and private medical specialist visits but not in family doctor visits. There are also slight pro-rich inequities in overall indicators of clinical process quality and patient experience from public health care, substantial pro-rich inequalities in bereaved people's experiences of health and social care for recently deceased relatives, andmostly slight but occasionally substantial pro-rich inequities in the use of preventive care (for example, dental check-ups, eye tests, screening and vaccination) and a few specific treatments (for example, hip and knee replacement). Studies of population health care outcomes (for example, avoidable emergency hospitalisation) find substantial pro-rich inequality after adjusting for age and sex only. These findings are all consistent with a broad economic framework that sees health care as just one input into the production of health over the life course, alongside many other socio-economically patterned inputs including environmental factors (for example, living and working conditions), consumption (for example, diet and smoking), self-care (for example, seeking medical information) and informal care (for example, support from family and friends). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cross-country comparisons of socioeconomic equity in health care typically use sample survey data on general services such as physician visits. This study uses comprehensive administrative data on a specific service: hip replacement. Methods: We analyse 651 652 publicly funded hip replacements, excluding fractures and accidents, in adults over 35 in Denmark, England, Portugal and Spain from 2002 to 2009. Sub-national administrative areas are split into socioeconomic quintile groups comprising approximately one-fifth of the national population. Area-level Poisson regression with Huber-White standard errors is used to calculate age-sex standardised hip replacement rates by quintile group, together with gaps and ratios between richest and poorest groups (Q5 and Q1) and the middle group (Q3). Results: We find pro-rich-area inequality in England (2009 Q5/Q1 ratio 1.35 [CI 1.25–1.45]) and Spain (2009 Q5/Q1 ratio 1.43 [CI 1.17–1.70]), pro-poor-area inequality in Portugal (2009 Q5/Q1 ratio 0.67 [CI 0.50–0.83]) and no significant inequality in Denmark. Pro-rich-area inequality increased over time in England and Spain but not significantly. Within-country differences between socioeconomic quintile groups are smaller than between-country differences in general population averages: hip replacement rates are substantially lower in Portugal and Spain (8.6 and 7.4 per 10 000 in 2009) than England and Denmark (20.2 and 27.8 per 10 000 in 2009). Conclusion: Despite limitations regarding individual-level inequality and area heterogeneity, analysis of area-level data on publicly funded hospital activity can provide useful cross-country comparisons and longitudinal monitoring of socioeconomic inequality in specific health services. Although this kind of analysis cannot provide definitive answers, it can raise important questions for decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study developed a method for measuring change in socio-economic equity in health care utilisation using small-area level administrative data. Our method provides more detailed information on utilisation than survey data but only examines socio-economic differences between neighbourhoods rather than individuals. The context was the English NHS from 2001 to 2008, a period of accelerated expenditure growth and pro-competition reform. Hospital records for all adults receiving non-emergency hospital care in the English NHS from 2001 to 2008 were aggregated to 32,482 English small areas with mean population about 1500 and combined with other small-area administrative data. Regression models of utilisation were used to examine year-on-year change in the small-area association between deprivation and utilisation, allowing for population size, age–sex composition and disease prevalence including (from 2003 to 2008) cancer, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, hypothyroidism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack and (from 2006 to 2008) atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity and heart failure. There was no substantial change in small-area associations between deprivation and utilisation for outpatient visits, hip replacement, senile cataract, gastroscopy or coronary revascularisation, though overall non-emergency inpatient admissions rose slightly faster in more deprived areas than elsewhere. Associations between deprivation and disease prevalence changed little during the period, indicating that observed need did not grow faster in more deprived areas than elsewhere. We conclude that there was no substantial deterioration in socio-economic equity in health care utilisation in the English NHS from 2001 to 2008, and if anything, there may have been a slight improvement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The central objectives of the 'Blair/Brown' reforms of the English NHS in the 2000s were to reduce hospital waiting times and improve the quality of care. However, critics raised concerns that the choice and competition elements of reform might undermine socioeconomic equity in health care. By contrast, the architects of reform predicted that accelerated growth in NHS spending combined with increased patient choice of hospital would enhance equity for poorer patients. This paper draws together and discusses the findings of three large-scale national studies designed to shed empirical light on this issue. Study one developed methods for monitoring change in neighbourhood level socioeconomic equity in the utilization of health care, and found no substantial change in equity between 2001-02 and 2008-09 for non-emergency hospital admissions, outpatient admissions (from 2004-05) and a basket of specific hospital procedures (hip replacement, senile cataract, gastroscopy and coronary revascularization). Study two found that increased competition between 2003-04 and 2008-09 had no substantial effect on socioeconomic equity in health care. Study three found that potential incentives for public hospitals to select against socioeconomically-disadvantaged hip replacement patients were small, compared with incentives to select against elderly and co-morbid patients. Taken together, these findings suggest that the Blair/Brown reforms had little effect on socioeconomic equity in health care. This may be because the 'dose' of competition was small and most hospital services continued to be provided by public hospitals which did not face strong incentives to select against socioeconomically-disadvantaged patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare socioeconomic inequality in small area use of elective total hip replacement in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 1991 and 2001. Methods: Hospital Episode Statistics and Census data were aggregated to a common geography of 'frozen' 1991 English electoral wards. The Townsend deprivation score was used as the primary indicator of socioeconomic status for each ward, and the sensitivity analysis used other Census indicators. Two main measures of inequality were examined: the indirectly age–sex standardized utilization rate ratio between most and least deprived quintile groups, and the concentration index of deprivation-related inequality in age–sex standardized utilization ratios between small areas. Each standardized utilization ratio is the observed use divided by the expected use, if each age and sex group in the study population had the same use rate as the national population. Results: In both years, observed use was below expected use for the bottom third of areas by socioeconomic status. The standardized utilization rate ratio between top and bottom Townsend quintiles fell from 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36–1.47) in 1991 to 1.27 (95% CI 1.23–1.32) in 2001. The proportionate increase in use required to bring the bottom quintile to the level of top thus fell significantly from 41% to 27%. The Town-send-based concentration index also fell from 0.069 (95% CI 0.059–0.079) in 1991 to 0.060 (95% CI 0.050–0.071) in 2001, although this fall was not statistically significant (P = 0.085). Other socioeconomic indicators yielded a similar pattern. Conclusions: Socioeconomic small area inequality in use of total hip replacement appears to have fallen between 1991 and 2001. One possible explanation is that increased hip replacement rates in the 1990s may have lowered barriers to access, thus allowing this health technology to diffuse further among lower socioeconomic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to provide empirical evidence regarding the impact of hospital competition on socioeconomic medical care inequality in English National Health Service (NHS). It uses administrative data on variations in NHS hospital utilization rates. It compares inequality differences every year between areas with noncompetitive and potentially competitive local hospital industry. It finds that the difference of baseline 1991 in area inequality gradients between noncompetitive and potentially competitive groups did not vary in any of the years from 1992 to 2001. It notes that there is no evidence that competition had impact on socioeconomic medical care inequalities in use of heart revascularization or hip replacement.

Abstract: Waiting times for elective surgery, like hip replacement, are often referred to as an equitable rationing mechanism in publicly-funded healthcare systems because access to care is not based on socioeconomic status. Previous work has established that that this may not be the case and there is evidence of inequality in NHS waiting times favouring patients living in the least deprived neighbourhoods in England. We advance the literature by explaining variations of inequalities in waiting times in England in four different ways. First, we ask whether inequalities are driven by education rather than income. Our analysis shows that education and income deprivation have distinct effects on waiting time. Patients in the first quintile with least deprivation in education wait 9% less than patients in the second quintile and 14% less than patients in the third-to-fifth quintile. Patients in the fourth and fifth most income-deprived quintile wait about 7% longer than patients in the least deprived quintile. Second, we investigate whether inequalities arise “across” hospitals or “within” the hospital. The analysis provides evidence that most inequalities occur within hospitals rather than across hospitals. Moreover, failure to control for hospital fixed effects results in underestimation of the income gradient. Third, we explore whether inequalities arise across the entire waiting time distribution. Inequalities between better educated patients and other patients occur over large part of the waiting time distribution. Moreover we find that the education gradient becomes smaller for very long waiting. Fourth, we investigate whether the gradient may reflect the fact that patients with higher socioeconomic status have a different severity as proxied through a range of types and the number of diagnoses (in addition to age and gender) compared to those with lower socioeconomic status. We find no evidence that differences in severity explain the social gradient in waiting times. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Distributional cost effectiveness analysis is a new method that can help to redesign prevention programmes by explicitly modelling the distribution of health opportunity costs as well as the distribution of health benefits. Previously we modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening audit data from Liverpool, UK to see if the city could redesign its cardiovascular screening programme to enhance its cost effectiveness and equity. Building on this previous analysis, we explicitly examined the distribution of health opportunity costs and we looked at new redesign options co-designed with stakeholders. We simulated four plausible scenarios: a) no CVD screening, b) 'current' basic universal CVD screening as currently implemented, c) enhanced universal CVD screening with 'increased' population-wide delivery, and d) 'universal plus targeted' with top-up delivery to the most deprived fifth. We also compared assumptions around whether displaced health spend would come from programmes that might benefit the poor more and how much health these programmes would generate. The main outcomes were net health benefit and change in the slope index of inequality (SII) in QALYs per 100,000 person years. 'Universal plus targeted' dominated 'increased' and 'current' and also reduced health inequality by -0.65 QALYs per 100,000 person years. Results are highly sensitive to assumptions about opportunity costs and, in particular, whether funding comes from health care or local government budgets. By analysing who loses as well as who gains from expenditure decisions, distributional cost effectiveness analysis can help decision makers to redesign prevention programmes in ways that improve health and reduce health inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]