Bleeding Hearts, Profiteers, or Both: Specialist Physician Fees in an Unregulated Market

Impact of time of diagnosis on out-of-pocket costs of cancer treatment, a side effect of health insurance design in Australia

The Extended Medicare Safety Net (EMSN) in Australia was designed to provide financial assistance to patients with high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical treatment. The EMSN works on a calendar year basis. Once a patient incurs a specified amount of OOP costs, the EMSN provides additional financial benefits for the remainder of the calendar year. Its design is similar to many types of insurance products that have large deductibles and are applied on a calendar year basis. This study examines if the annual quarter within which a patient is diagnosed with cancer has an impact on the OOP costs incurred for treatment. We use administrative linked data from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study. Our results indicate that the timing of cancer diagnosis has a significant impact on OOP costs. Specifically, patients diagnosed in the fourth quarter of the calendar year experience significantly higher OOP costs compared to those diagnosed in the first quarter of the year. This pattern persists after controlling for different types of cancer and different stages of cancer and robustness checks. These findings have important implications for the design of the EMSN, as well as other insurance products.

Physician responses to insurance benefit restrictions: The case of ophthalmology

This study examines the impact of social insurance benefit restrictions on physician behaviour, using ophthalmologists as a case study. We examine whether ophthalmologists use their market power to alter their fees and rebates across services to compensate for potential policy-induced income losses. The results show that ophthalmologists substantially reduced their fees and rebates for services directly targeted by the benefit restriction compared to other medical specialists' fees and rebates. There is also some evidence that they increased their fees for services that were not targeted. High-fee charging ophthalmologists exhibited larger fee and rebate responses while the low-fee charging group raise their rebates to match the reference price provided by the policy environment.

Marked variations in medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for radical prostatectomy procedures in Australia

Objectives Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures are frequently reported, yet less attention is given to the variations in associated costs. This issue can further widen disparities in access to care and provoke questions about the overall value of the procedure. The present paper aimed to delve into the disparities in hospital, medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for RP procedures in Australia, discussing plausible causes and potential policy opportunities. Methods A retrospective cohort study using Medibank Private claims data for RP procedures conducted in Australian hospitals between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 was undertaken. Results Considerable variations in both medical provider and out-of-pocket costs were observed across the country, with variations evident between different states or territories. Particularly striking were the discrepancies in the costs charged by medical providers, with a notable contrast between the 10th and 90th percentiles revealing a substantial difference of A$9925. Hospitals in Australia exhibited relatively comparable charges for RP procedures. Conclusions Initiatives such as enhancing transparency regarding individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations with healthcare providers may be useful in curbing the variations in RP procedure costs.

"It's not a one operation fits all": A qualitative study exploring fee setting and participation in price transparency initiatives amongst medical specialists in the Australian private healthcare sector

The Australian government, through Medicare, defines the type of medical specialist services it covers and subsidizes, but it does not regulate prices. Specialists in private practice can charge more than the fee listed by Medicare depending on what they feel 'the market will bear'. This can sometimes result in high and unexpected out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for patients. To reduce pricing uncertainty and 'bill shock' faced by consumers, the government introduced a price transparency website in December 2019. It is not clear how effective such a website will be and whether specialists and patients will use it. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing how specialists set their fees, and their views on and participation in price transparency initiatives. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with surgical specialists. We analysed the data using thematic analysis and responses were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model. We identified several patient, specialist and system-level factors influencing fee setting. Patient-level factors included patient characteristics, circumstance, complexity, and assumptions regarding perceived value of care. Specialist-level factors included perceived experience and skills, ethical considerations, and gendered-behavior. System-level factors included the Australian Medical Association recommended price list, practice costs, and supply and demand factors including perceived competition and practice location. Specialists were opposed to price transparency websites and lacked motivation to participate because of the complexity of fee setting, concerns over unintended consequences, and feelings of frustration they were being singled out. If price transparency websites are to be pursued, specialists' lack of motivation to participate needs to be addressed.

Provider responses to the expansion of public subsidies in healthcare: The case of oral chemotherapy treatment in Australia

We examine provider responses to the expansion of public subsidies in 2015 for innovative oral chemotherapy treatment, in a health system where providers were free to determine their own prices. The new treatment was known to have similar efficacy to its traditional intravenous alternative and was preferred by patients for its at-home administration. However, from a policymaker's perspective, the potential for misalignment between patient and provider preferences was significant given the shift to full reimbursement for the oral chemotherapy medication but no change in fee-for-service payments for associated chemotherapy services. Under this scenario, a shift away from traditional intravenous chemotherapy may entail reduced activity and revenues associated with infusions for providers, and we hypothesise that it may result in unintended policy consequences such as reduced take-up of the new therapy or higher prices. We implement a difference-in-difference model using national administrative data on services provided, and chemotherapy medications prescribed, by providers to 1850 patients in New South Wales, Australia. Our estimates indicate that the subsidies expanded access to oral chemotherapy for newly eligible patients by 15 percentage points. However, prices charged by providers for an episode of care rose by 23 percent, driven mostly by increases in service volumes. The results illustrate the importance of understanding differential provider responses to policy changes in financial incentives.

Geographic variation in out-of-pocket costs for radiation oncology services

OBJECTIVES

To examine out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients for radiation oncology services and their variation by geographic location.

DESIGN

Analysis of patient-level Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims data linked with data from the Sax Institute 45 and Up Study.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

People who received Medicare-subsidised radiation oncology services in New South Wales, 2006-2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean out-of-pocket costs for an episode of radiation oncology (during 90 days from start of radiotherapy planning service), by geographic location (postcode-based), overall and after excluding episodes with no out-of-pocket costs (fully bulk-billed).

RESULTS

During 2006-2017, 12 724 people received 15 506 episodes of radiation oncology care in 25 postcode-defined geographic areas. The proportion of episodes for which the out-of-pocket cost was less than $1 increased from 39% in 2006 to 76% in 2017; the proportion for which out-of-pocket costs exceeded $500 declined from 43% in 2006 to 10% in 2014, before increasing to 17% in 2017. For care episodes with non-zero out-of-pocket costs, the mean amount rose from around $1186 to $1611 per episode of care during 2006-2017. The proportion of radiation oncology episodes bulk-billed exceeded 90% in nine areas; in seven areas, all with exclusively private care provision of radiation oncology, it was 21% or smaller. Within geographic areas, out-of-pocket costs for individual care episodes varied widely; in ten areas with lower bulk-billing rates, the interquartile range for costs ranged from $240 to $1857.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-pocket costs are an important determinant of access to care. Although radiotherapy costs for most people are moderate, some face very high costs, and these vary markedly by location. It is important to ensure that radiation oncology services remain affordable for all people who need treatment.

Progressivity of out-of-pocket costs under Australia's universal health care system: A national linked data study

BACKGROUND

In line with affordability and equity principles, Medicare-Australia's universal health care program-has measures to contain out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, particularly for lower income households. This study examined the distribution of OOP costs for Medicare-subsidised out-of-hospital services and prescription medicines in Australian households, according to their ability to pay.

METHODS

OOP costs for out-of-hospital services and medicines in 2017-18 were estimated for each household, using 2016 Australian Census data linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) claims. We derived household disposable income by combining income information from the Census linked to income tax and social security data. We quantified OOP costs as a proportion of equivalised household disposable income and calculated Kakwani progressivity indices (K).

RESULTS

Using data from 82% (n = 6,830,365) of all Census private households, OOP costs as a percentage of equivalised household disposable income decreased from 1.16% in the poorest decile to 0.63% in the richest decile for MBS services, and from 1.35% to 0.35% for PBS medicines. The regressive trend was less pronounced for MBS services (K = -0.06), with percentage OOP cost relatively stable between the 2nd and 9th income deciles; while percentage OOP cost decreased with increasing income for PBS medicines (K = -0.24).

CONCLUSION

OOP costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services were mildly regressive while those for prescription medicines were distinctly regressive. Actions to reduce inequity in OOP costs, particularly for medicines, should be considered.

Patterns of specialist out-of-pocket costs for Australian Medicare services: implications for price transparency

Objective To explore out-of-pocket (OOP) costs within specialties and individual specialists, and use of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) data for potential price transparency initiatives. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study of claims for a 10% random sample of Medicare enrolees for out-of-hospital MBS-billed subsequent and initial consultations between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2014, specific to cardiologist, oncologist and ophthalmologists (with at least 10 patient visits in 2014). Our main outcomes were the number of locations per provider, number of unique OOP consultation costs per provider and provider-location, and the proportion of bulk-billed visits for these visits. Results We studied 970 cardiologists, 913 ophthalmologists and 376 oncologists. At least 67% of specialists across each specialty had at least two practice locations: cardiologists had a median of three (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-4) and ophthalmologists and oncologists both had a median of two (IQR: 1-3). For subsequent consultations, cardiologists had a median of three unique costs per location (IQR: 2-3), whereas ophthalmologists had a median of four unique costs per location (IQR: 3-5). In contrast, oncologists had a median of one unique cost per location (IQR: 1-2) (57.6% of oncologists' provider-locations charged only the bulk-billing amount). Conclusions Specialists have distinct fee lists that can vary based on location. Summary statistics on price transparency websites based on a single amount (like a median or mean OOP charge) might mask substantial variation in costs and lead to bill shock for individual patients.

The link between out-of-pocket costs and inequality in specialist care in Australia

Objective Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs could act as a potential barrier to accessing specialist services, particularly among low-income patients. The aim of this study is to examine the link between OOP costs and socioeconomic inequality in specialist services in Australia. Methods This study is based on population-level data from the Medicare Benefits Schedule of Australia in 2014-15. Three outcomes of specialist care were used: all visits, visits without OOP costs (bulk-billed services), and visits with OOP costs. Logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to examine the association between outcome variables and area-level socioeconomic status after controlling for age, sex, state of residence, and geographic remoteness. The concentration index was used to quantify the extent of inequality. Results Our results indicate that the distribution of specialist visits favoured the people living in wealthier areas of Australia. There was a pro-rich inequality in specialist visits associated with OOP costs. However, the distribution of the visits incurring zero OOP cost was slightly favourable to the people living in lower socioeconomic areas. The pro-poor distribution of visits with zero OOP cost was insufficient to offset the pro-rich distribution among the visits with OOP costs. Conclusions OOP costs for specialist care might partly undermine the equity principle of Medicare in Australia. This presents a challenge to the government on how best to influence the rate and distribution of specialists' services.

Health care use in response to health shocks: Does socio-economic status matter?

We investigate how utilization of primary care, specialist care, and emergency department (ED) care (and the mix across the three) changes in response to a change in health need. We determine whether any changes in utilization are impacted by socio-economic status. The use of a unique Australian data set that consists of a large survey linked to multiple years of detailed administrative records enables us to better control for individual heterogeneity and allows us to exploit changes in health that are related to the onset of two health shocks: a new diagnosis of diabetes and heart disease. We extend the analysis by also examining changes to patient out-of-pocket costs. We find significant differences in the mix between primary and specialist care use according to income and type of health shock but no evidence of using ED as a substitute for other care. Our results indicate that low- and high-income patients navigate very different pathways for their care following the onset of diabetes and to a lesser extent heart disease. These pathways appear to be chosen on the basis of ability to pay, rather than the most effective or efficient bundle of care delivered through a combination of GP and specialist care.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses compared across five years for patients with one of five common cancers in Australia

Background

Patient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis.

Methods

Participants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately.

Results

On average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services.

Conclusion

Out-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08756-x.

A cross-sectional analysis of out-of-pocket expenses for people living with a cancer in rural and outer metropolitan Western Australia

Objective To determine the extent of medical and non-medical out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) among regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients diagnosed with cancer, and the factors associated with higher costs. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from adult patients living in four regional/rural areas and two outer metropolitan regions in Western Australia who had been diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer. Consenting participants were mailed demographic and financial questionnaires, and requested to report all OOPE related to their cancer treatment. Results The median total OOPE reported by 308 regional/rural participants and 119 outer metropolitan participants were A$1518 (interquartile range (IQR): A$581-A$3769) and A$2855 (IQR: A$958-A$7142) respectively. Participants most likely to experience higher total OOPE were younger than 65 years of age, male, resided in the outer metropolitan area, worked prior to diagnosis, had private health insurance, were in a relationship, and underwent surgery. Multivariate analysis of regional/rural participants revealed that receiving care at a rural cancer centre was associated with significantly lower non-medical OOPE (estimated mean A$805, 95% confidence interval (CI): A$735-A$875, P=0.038; compared with other rural participants (A$1347, 95% CI: A$743-A$1951, P<0.001)). Conclusion The cancer patients who participated in this study experienced variation in OOPE, with outer metropolitan participants reporting higher OOPE compared with their regional/rural counterparts. There is a need for cost transparency and access to care close to home, so that patients can make informed choices about where to receive their care. What is known about the topic? In recent years, OOPE for health care in general and cancer in particular have been widely debated by consumers and not-for-profit organisations; the topic has attracted much political attention because it affects both equity and access to care and has wider financial implications for the community. Research studies and reports from both consumer organisations and a Ministerial Advisory Committee found that cancer patients can face exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, and that individuals with private health insurance and those with prostate and breast cancer reported higher costs. In Western Australia, a cancer centre providing comprehensive cancer care was established in the second most populous region to ameliorate the high costs for travel and accommodation that regional cancer patients are known to experience. What does this paper add? This study is unique because it collected detailed cost information from patients and reports on the OOPE of regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients receiving care for one of the four most common cancers; it therefore offers novel insight into the experiences of these groups. This study demonstrates that outer metropolitan cancer patients are experiencing much higher OOPE compared with regional/rural cancer patients. Additionally, regional/rural study participants who accessed a Regional Cancer Centre experienced significantly lower non-medical OOPE, compared with regional/rural study participants receiving care elsewhere. What are the implications for practitioners? First, there is a need for improved communication of OOPE to minimise costs to the patient, for example, by facilitating access to local cancer care. Health service providers and insurance companies can improve cost transparency for cancer patients by making this information more readily available, allowing patients to make informed financial choices about where to seek care. Second, the needs of working patients deserve specific attention. These patients face significant work uncertainty and additional distress following a cancer diagnosis.

Inequality in out of pocket fees, government funding and utilisation of maternal health services in Australia

This study aimed to assess the distribution of service utilisation, out-of-pocket fees and government funding for maternal health care in Australia by socioeconomic group. A large linked administrative dataset was utilised. Women were grouped into socioeconomic quintiles using an area-based measure of socioeconomic status. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the distribution of number of services, out of pocket fees, and government funding by socioeconomic quintile. Needs-adjusted concentration indices (CI_NA) were utilised to quantify inequity. The mean out of pocket fees for women of least socioeconomic advantage was $1,026 and for women of most socioeconomic advantage the mean was $2,432 (CI_NA 0.093, 95% CI: 0.088 - 0.098). However, use of many services were higher for women of most socioeconomic advantage: private obstetrician (CI_NA: 0.035, 95% CI: 0.032 - 0.038), other specialist services (CI_NA: 0.089, 95%CI: 0.083 - 0.094), and diagnostic and pathology tests (CI_NA: 0.027, 95%CI: 0.025 - 0.030). Federal government funding through Medicare was distributed towards women of most socioeconomic advantage (CI_NA: 0.036, 95%CI: 0.033 - 0.039); whereas government public hospital funding was skewed towards women of least socioeconomic advantage (CI_NA: -0.05, 95%CI: -0.057 - -0.046). Future policy changes in Australia's healthcare system need to ensure that women of least socioeconomic advantage have adequate access to maternity and early childhood care, and out of pocket fees are not an access barrier.

Association between telehealth use and general practitioner characteristics during COVID-19: findings from a nationally representative survey of Australian doctors

OBJECTIVE

To investigate factors associated with the use of telehealth by general practitioners (GPs) during COVID-19.

DESIGN

A nationally representative longitudinal survey study of Australian doctors analysed using regression analysis.

SETTING

General practice in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS

448 GPs who completed both the 11th wave (2018-2019) of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) Survey and the MABEL COVID-19 Special Online Survey (May 2020).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of all consultations delivered via telephone (audio) or video (audiovisual); proportion of telehealth consultations delivered via video.

RESULTS

46.1% of GP services were provided using telehealth in early May 2020, with 6.4% of all telehealth consultations delivered via video. Higher proportions of telehealth consultations were observed in GPs in larger practices compared with solo GPs: between +0.21 (95% CI +0.07 to +0.35) and +0.28 (95% CI +0.13 to +0.44). Greater proportions of telehealth consultations were delivered through video for GPs with appropriate infrastructure and for GPs with more complex patients: +0.10 (95% CI +0.04 to +0.16) and +0.04 (95% CI +0.00 to +0.08), respectively. Lower proportions of telehealth consultations were delivered via video for GPs over 55 years old compared with GPs under 35 years old: between -0.08 (95% CI -0.02 to -0.15) and -0.15 (95% CI -0.07 to -0.22), and for GPs in postcodes with a higher proportion of patients over 65 years old: -0.005 (95% CI -0.001 to -0.008) for each percentage point increase in the population over 65 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

GP characteristics are strongly associated with patterns of telehealth use in clinical work. Infrastructure support and relative pricing of different consultation modes may be useful policy instruments to encourage GPs to deliver care by the most appropriate method.

Horizontal inequity in the utilisation of healthcare services in Australia

The Australian universal healthcare system aims to ensure affordable and equitable use of healthcare services based on individual health needs. This paper presents empirical evidence on the extent of horizontal inequity (HI) in healthcare services (unequal utilisation by income for equal need) in Australia during the period of promoting reliance on private healthcare financing. Using data from the most recent Australian National Health Survey of 2011-12 and 2014-15, we examined and measured the extent of HI in eight indicators of out-of-hospital services and hospital-related care. Contrary to earlier studies, our results show a small but pro-rich inequity in the probability of general practitioner visits. Inequity in the distribution of specialist and dentist visits was in favour of richer people, a result that is commonly found in other developed countries and is also consistent with existing Australian evidence. Hospital-related care was equitably distributed compared to the pro-poor pattern found in earlier studies. Despite the universal health insurance system in Australia, there was inequity in the utilisation of needed healthcare services. Our evidence is relevant to similar health systems as governments move to higher out-of-pocket payments and other private sources to reduce pressure on public healthcare expenditure.

Why the Economic Aspects of Healthcare are not Unique

Frequent claims suggest that healthcare and its production are not only different from other goods, but that they differ to such an extent that healthcare should be viewed as unique. Various features of healthcare, such as the lack of a perfect market and the existence of information asymmetry, are cited as evidence of this claim. However, such a view results from unduly emphasising the characteristics of healthcare as being atypical. This article redresses this imbalance by taking an alternative approach and examines the ways in which the economic aspects of healthcare are similar to those of other goods. It was found that the differential aspects are less distinctive than claimed and the economic aspects of healthcare are not unique.

Inequity in physician visits: the case of the unregulated fee market in Australia

Equity is one of the key goals of universal healthcare coverage (UHC). Achieving this goal does not just depend on the presence of UHC, but also on its design and organisation. In Australia, out-of-hospital medical services are provided by private physicians in a market where fees are unregulated. This makes an interesting case to study equity. Using data from the Australian National Health Survey of 2014-15, we distinguish between the probability of any visit and the number of visits conditional on having any visit to analyse income-related inequity in general practitioner (GP) and specialist visits. We apply the horizontal inequity approach to measure the extent of inequity, and the decomposition method to explain the factors accounting for inequity. Our results show a small pro-rich inequity in the probability of any GP visit, but the distribution of conditional GP visits was concentrated among the poor. Inequity in the probability of any specialist visit was pro-rich. However, there was almost no inequity in conditional specialist visits. We find holding a concession card explained pro-poor inequity while income, education, and private health insurance contributed to pro-rich inequity in specialist visits. Although Australia has a universal health insurance system, there is unequal use (adjusted for health need) of physician services by socioeconomic status. This has implications for insurance design in other countries.

'…If I don't have that sort of money again, what happens?': adapting a qualitative model to conceptualise the consequences of out-of-pocket expenses for cancer patients in mixed health systems

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore Western Australian cancer patients’ experiences of out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) during diagnosis and cancer treatment using a phenomenological approach. MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive convenience sample of 40 Western Australian cancer patients diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer. Participants were asked about the impact of their diagnosis, the associated costs and their experience within the health system. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. ResultsThree key themes influencing participant OOPE experiences were identified: (1) personal circumstances; (2) communication with health providers; and (3) coping strategies. Despite Australia’s public healthcare system, several participants found the costs affected their financial security and resorted to coping strategies including medication rationing and restrictive household budgeting. The key themes had a complex and interrelated effect on patient OOPE experiences and were used to adapt Carrera et al.’s model of economic consequences of cancer treatment on the patient and patient coping to describe these relationships in a mixed healthcare system. ConclusionOrganised efforts must be implemented to mitigate maladaptive coping strategies being used by cancer patients: (1) health providers should seek informed financial consent from patients before commencing treatment; and (2) financial aid and support schemes for cancer patients should be reviewed to ensure they are delivered equitably. What is known on this topic?The financial cost of cancer can have significant adverse effects on cancer patients. Although financial transparency is desired by cancer patients, its implementation in practice is not clear. What does this paper add?This study adapts a conceptual model for the economic consequences of a cancer diagnosis and repurposes it for a mixed public–private health system, providing a framework for understanding downstream consequences of cancer costs and highlighting opportunities for intervention. What are the implications for health practitioners?Health practitioners need to initiate discussions concerning treatment costs earlier with cancer patients. There are several resources and guides available to assist and facilitate financial transparency. Without urgent attention to the financial consequences of cancer treatment and related expenses, we continue to leave patients at risk of resorting to maladaptive coping strategies, such as medication rationing and restrictive household budgeting.

Patterns of health service utilisation among the Australian population with cancer compared with the general population

Objective The aim of this study was to describe patterns of health service utilisation among the Australian population with cancer compared with the general population. Methods Data for all respondents aged ≥25 years from two successive National Health Surveys conducted between 2011 and 2014 were analysed. Respondents with a history of cancer were identified as the cancer group, whereas all other respondents who did not report having had a cancer were included in the non-cancer control group. Comparisons were made between the two groups using logistic regression models. Results The population with cancer was more likely to report having consulted their general practitioner, specialist, chemist, dietician, naturopath, nurse, optometrist, dentist, audiologist and other health professionals than the non-cancer population. The cancer population was also more likely to be admitted to hospital and to have visited an out-patient clinic, emergency department and day clinic. The presence of comorbidity and a current cancer were associated with a greater likelihood of receiving health services among the population with cancer. Conclusion The population with cancer used health services significantly more than the non-cancer population. Further studies are urgently needed to identify optimal approaches to delivery of care for this population, including barriers and enablers for their implementation. What is known about the topic? Multimorbidity is highly prevalent among the cancer population due to risk factors shared between cancer and other chronic diseases, and the development of new conditions resulting from cancer treatment and cancer complications. However, the Australian healthcare system is not set up optimally to address issues related to multimorbidity. What does this paper add? This study is the first step in quantifying health services use by the population with cancer compared with the general population without cancer. Cancer survivors have an increased need for specific health services, particularly among those with multimorbidity. What are the implications for practitioners? The development of integrated care models to manage multiple chronic diseases aligned with the Australian National Strategic Framework for Chronic Conditions is warranted. Further studies are urgently needed to identify optimal approaches to delivery of care for this population, including barriers and enablers for their implementation.

Patient co-payments for women diagnosed with breast cancer in Australia

Purpose

Among Australian women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer. The out-of-pocket cost to the patient is substantial. This study estimates the total patient co-payments for Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for women diagnosed with breast cancer and determined the distribution of these costs by Indigenous status, remoteness, and socioeconomic status.

Methods

Data on women diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland between 01 July 2011 and 30 June 2012 were obtained from the Queensland Cancer Registry and linked with hospital and Emergency Department Admissions, and MBS and PBS records for the 3 years post-diagnosis. The data were then weighted to be representative of the Australian population. The co-payment charged for MBS services and PBS prescriptions was summed. We modelled the mean co-payment per patient during each 6-month time period for MBS services and PBS prescriptions.

Results

A total of 3079 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland during the 12-month study period, representing 15,335 Australian women after weighting. In the first 3 years post-diagnosis, the median co-payment for MBS services was AU$ 748 (IQR, AU$87–2121; maximum AU$32,249), and for PBS prescriptions was AU$ 835 (IQR, AU$480–1289; maximum AU$5390). There were significant differences in the co-payments for MBS services and PBS prescriptions by Indigenous status and socioeconomic disadvantage, but none for remoteness.

Conclusions

Women incur high patient co-payments in the first 3 years post-diagnosis. These costs vary greatly by patient. Potential costs should be discussed with women throughout their treatment, to allow women greater choice in the most appropriate care for their situation.

Equity of a government subsidised exercise referral scheme: A population study

BACKGROUND

Health inequities could increase if utilisation of physical activity interventions is lower among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. We examined associations between area level socioeconomic disadvantage and utilisation of Australian government-subsidised, general practitioner (GP)-referred, accredited exercise physiologist (AEPs) services.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Australian Medical Benefits Scheme (MBS) data (N = 228,771 AEP services) for the 2015-2016 financial year and aggregated publicly available data from several sources. Spearman's correlations examined associations between utilisation of AEP services and area-level socioeconomic disadvantage, indicated by Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) decile scores. Lower IRSD scores indicate greater levels of socioeconomic disadvantage.

RESULTS

Significant correlations between IRSD score and study variables were as follows: Out-of-pocket expenses/service (rs = 0.52); number of patients/AEP provider (rs = -0.42); number of patients/1000 population (rs = -0.24); AEP services/1000 population (rs = -0.18); average services/patient (rs = 0.24); and AEP provider/1000 population (rs = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Patients living in areas of greater disadvantage utilised government-subsidised, GP-referred AEP services at a higher rate and paid lower out-of-pocket fees than those living in more affluent areas. Thus, AEP services are equitably distributed, from a utilisation perspective, and acceptable to patients living in areas of disadvantage. However, the higher caseloads and lower fees that characterise AEP services in areas of greater disadvantage may result in shorter consultation times. Further research on exercise referral schemes is warranted, particularly whether socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with adherence to exercise sessions and health outcomes.

Out-of-pocket expenses experienced by rural Western Australians diagnosed with cancer

PURPOSE

Out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) can have a significant impact on patients' experiences of cancer treatment. This cross-sectional study sought to quantify the OOPEs experienced by rural cancer patients in Western Australia (WA), and determine factors that contributed to higher OOPE.

METHODS

Four hundred people diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal or prostate cancer who resided in selected rural regions of WA were recruited through the WA Cancer Registry and contacted at least 3 months after diagnosis to report the medical OOPE (such as surgery or chemotherapy, supportive care, medication and tests) and non-medical OOPE (such as travel costs, new clothing and utilities) they had experienced as a result of accessing and receiving treatment. Bootstrapped t tests identified demographic, financial and treatment-related factors to include in multivariate analysis, performed using log-linked generalised linear models with gamma distribution.

RESULTS

After a median 21 weeks post-diagnosis, participants experienced an average OOPE of AU$2179 (bootstrapped 95% confidence interval $1873-$2518), and 45 (11%) spent more than 10% of their household income on these expenses. Participants likely to experience higher total OOPE were younger than 65 years (p = 0.008), resided outside the South West region (p = 0.007) and had private health insurance (PHI) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural WA cancer patients experience significant OOPE following their diagnosis. The impact these expenses have on patient wellbeing and their treatment decisions need to be further explored.

Prevalence of psychological distress: How do Australia and Canada compare?

OBJECTIVE

To compare equivalent population-level mental health indicators in Canada and Australia, and articulate recommendations to support equitable mental health services. These are two somewhat similar resource-rich countries characterized by extensive non-metropolitan and rural regions as well as significant areas of socioeconomic deprivation.

METHODS

A cross-national epidemiology and equity study: primary outcome was Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) in recent national surveys. A secondary outcome was mental disorders rate since these surveys were 5-years apart.

RESULTS

Elevated distress, defined by K10 scores (0-40 range) of 12 and over, affected 11.1% Australians and 12.0% Canadians. Elevated distress in both countries affected more people in the lowest income quintile (21-27%) compared to the richest (6%). In the lowest income quintile, 1-in-4 Australians and 1-in-5 Canadians reported elevated distress - twice the national average in both countries. Australians in the lowest income quintile (over 5 million people) have a significantly higher risk by over a 5% for elevated distress compared to their low-income Canadian counterparts. After adjusting for effects of age and gender, the relative odds in the lowest quintile compared to richest was 6.4 for Australians and 3.5 for Canadians, which remained significantly different thus confirming greater inequity in Australia. Mental disorders affected approximately 1-in-10 people in both countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This adds to the mental health prevalence monitoring in these two countries by supporting an overall prevalence of elevated distress in approximately 1-in-10 people. It supports large-scale public health interventions that target elevated distress in people with low incomes to order to achieve the biggest impact, and, to reduce the greater inequity in mental health indicators in Australians, policy-makers should consider eliminating gap-fees as they are illegal in Canada. As encouraged by World Health Organization, we highlight the importance of such population-level studies so that cross-national results can be reliably compared.

Expanding the breadth of Medicare: learning from Australia

The design of Australia’s Medicare programme was based on the Canadian scheme, adapted somewhat to take account of differences in the constitutional division of powers in the two countries and differences in history. The key elements are very similar: access to hospital services without charge being the core similarity, universal coverage for necessary medical services, albeit with a variable co-payment in Australia, the other. But there are significant differences between the two countries in health programmes – whether or not they are labelled as ‘Medicare’. This paper discusses four areas where Canada could potentially learn from Australia in a positive way. First, Australia has had a national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for almost 70 years. Second, there have been hesitant extensions to Australia’s Medicare to address the increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions – extensions which include some payments for allied health professionals, ‘care coordination’ payments, and exploration of ‘health care homes’. Third, Australia has a much more extensive system of support for older people to live in their homes or to move into supported residential care. Fourth, Australia has gone further in driving efficiency in the hospital sector than has Canada. Finally, the paper examines aspects of the Australian health care system that Canada should avoid, including the very high level of out-of-pocket costs, and the role of private acute inpatient provision.

Patient out-of-pocket medical expenses over 2 years among Queenslanders with and without a major cancer

Medical out-of-pocket costs paid by patients can be problematic when it adversely affects access to care. Survey research involving patients with out-of-pocket expenses may have selection biases, so accurate estimates are unknown. During 2010–11, 419 participants from the QSkin Sun and Health Study (n=43794) had a confirmed diagnosis of either melanoma, prostate, breast, colorectal or lung cancer. These were matched to a general population group (n=421) and a group of high users of GP services (n=419). Medical fees charged and out-of-pocket medical expenses for Medicare services were analysed. Over 2 years, three-quarters of individuals with cancer paid up-front provider fees of up to A$20551 compared with A$10995 for the high GP user group and A$6394 for the general population group. Out-of-pocket expenses were significantly higher for those with cancer (mean A$3514) compared with the high GP-user group (mean A$1837) and general population group (A$1245). Highest expenses were for therapeutic procedures (mean A$2062). Older individuals, those with poor perceived health or private health insurance had the highest costs. Regardless of private insurance status, patients with one of the main five cancers pay significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for health care compared with those without cancer.

Quantifying Queensland patients with cancer health service usage and costs: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The overall mortality rate for cancer has declined in Australia. However, socioeconomic inequalities exist and the out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients in Australia are high compared with some European countries. There is currently no readily available data set to provide a systematic means of measuring the out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients with cancer within Australia. The primary aim of the project is to quantify the direct out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure of individuals in the state of Queensland, who are diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project will build Australia's first model (called CancerCostMod) of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure of patients with cancer using administrative data from Queensland Cancer Registry, for all individuals diagnosed with any cancer in Queensland between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012, linked to their Admitted Patient Data Collection, Emergency Department Information System, Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme records from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2015. No identifiable information will be provided to the authors. The project will use a combination of linear and logistic regression modelling, Cox proportional hazards modelling and machine learning to identify differences in survival, total health system expenditure, total out-of-pocket expenditure and high out-of-pocket cost patients, adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders, and income group, Indigenous status and geographic location. Results will be analysed separately for different types of cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Human Research Ethics approval has been obtained from the Townsville Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/QTHS/110) and James Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee (H6678). Permission to waive consent has been sought from Queensland Health under the Public Health Act 2005.