Horizontal equity in primary care financing: An assessment of payments to general practices in England, 2014–2022

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charlene Lo , Laura Anselmi , Matt Sutton
{"title":"Horizontal equity in primary care financing: An assessment of payments to general practices in England, 2014–2022","authors":"Charlene Lo ,&nbsp;Laura Anselmi ,&nbsp;Matt Sutton","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Previous studies of equity in primary care financing have only considered deprivation as the benchmark for need and focused on specific funding streams. We assessed inequity in payments to primary care providers in England, considering alternative definitions of need and comparing different schemes and changes over time.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used data on annual payments to 7765 general practices between 2014 and 2022, linked to patient characteristics. We measured need as: (i) demand for care, based on patient appointment attempts; (ii) expected utilisation based on a primary care needs index; (iii) diagnosed morbidity, based on prevalence of 20 chronic conditions; and (iv) expected care burden from diagnosed morbidity, based on a hospital care needs index. We ranked practices by average patient neighbourhood income in 2019, and calculated concentration indices of need and need-standardized payments. We then decomposed the concentration index into need, socioeconomic (income, education, ethnicity, economic activity, rurality), and supply-side factors (practice region, dispensing status, contract type).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Need was concentrated among poorer populations for most measures: expected utilisation (concentration index (CI) = −0.0169), demand for care (CI = −0.0102) and expected burden from diagnosed morbidity (CI = −0.0097). The concentration of diagnosed morbidity varied across conditions. Total payments were consistently pro-rich, with the highest inequity when defining need by expected utilisation (horizontal inequity index (HI) = 0.0224), followed by diagnosed morbidity (HI = 0.0039). Inequity varied substantially across payment schemes, from pro-rich (HI = 0.03993) for the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee to pro-poor (HI = −0.0938) for the Personal Medical Services expenditure. Socioeconomic and supply-side factors contributed to pro-rich inequalities in payments in all years.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Payments to NHS primary care providers do not fully reflect healthcare need. Clear objectives for resource distribution should be defined and harmonized across different schemes to reduce horizontal inequities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"373 ","pages":"Article 117996"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625003260","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Previous studies of equity in primary care financing have only considered deprivation as the benchmark for need and focused on specific funding streams. We assessed inequity in payments to primary care providers in England, considering alternative definitions of need and comparing different schemes and changes over time.

Methods

We used data on annual payments to 7765 general practices between 2014 and 2022, linked to patient characteristics. We measured need as: (i) demand for care, based on patient appointment attempts; (ii) expected utilisation based on a primary care needs index; (iii) diagnosed morbidity, based on prevalence of 20 chronic conditions; and (iv) expected care burden from diagnosed morbidity, based on a hospital care needs index. We ranked practices by average patient neighbourhood income in 2019, and calculated concentration indices of need and need-standardized payments. We then decomposed the concentration index into need, socioeconomic (income, education, ethnicity, economic activity, rurality), and supply-side factors (practice region, dispensing status, contract type).

Results

Need was concentrated among poorer populations for most measures: expected utilisation (concentration index (CI) = −0.0169), demand for care (CI = −0.0102) and expected burden from diagnosed morbidity (CI = −0.0097). The concentration of diagnosed morbidity varied across conditions. Total payments were consistently pro-rich, with the highest inequity when defining need by expected utilisation (horizontal inequity index (HI) = 0.0224), followed by diagnosed morbidity (HI = 0.0039). Inequity varied substantially across payment schemes, from pro-rich (HI = 0.03993) for the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee to pro-poor (HI = −0.0938) for the Personal Medical Services expenditure. Socioeconomic and supply-side factors contributed to pro-rich inequalities in payments in all years.

Discussion

Payments to NHS primary care providers do not fully reflect healthcare need. Clear objectives for resource distribution should be defined and harmonized across different schemes to reduce horizontal inequities.
初级保健融资中的横向公平:2014-2022年英格兰全科医疗支付评估
目标以往关于初级医疗融资公平性的研究仅将贫困程度作为需求基准,并将重点放在特定的资金流上。我们评估了英格兰向初级医疗服务提供者支付费用的不平等情况,考虑了不同的需求定义,并比较了不同的计划和随时间推移而发生的变化。方法我们使用了 2014 年至 2022 年期间向 7765 家全科诊所支付的年度费用数据,并将其与患者特征联系起来。我们通过以下方面来衡量需求(i) 基于患者预约尝试的医疗需求;(ii) 基于初级医疗需求指数的预期利用率;(iii) 基于 20 种慢性病患病率的确诊发病率;以及 (iv) 基于医院医疗需求指数的确诊发病率带来的预期医疗负担。我们按照 2019 年患者平均邻里收入对医疗机构进行了排名,并计算了需求集中指数和需求标准化支付。然后,我们将集中指数分解为需求、社会经济因素(收入、教育、种族、经济活动、乡村)和供应方因素(执业地区、配药状况、合同类型)。结果在大多数衡量标准中,需求集中于较贫困的人群:预期利用率(集中指数 (CI) = -0.0169)、护理需求(CI = -0.0102)和确诊发病率的预期负担(CI = -0.0097)。确诊发病率的集中程度因病情而异。总支付额始终偏高,以预期使用率定义需求时不公平程度最高(水平不公平指数 (HI) = 0.0224),其次是确诊发病率(HI = 0.0039)。不同支付方案的不公平程度差异很大,最低实践收入保障方案有利于富人(HI = 0.03993),而个人医疗服务支出方案则有利于穷人(HI = -0.0938)。社会经济因素和供应方因素导致了所有年份中有利于富人的支付不平等。应确定明确的资源分配目标,并在不同计划之间进行协调,以减少横向不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信