Do Rurality-Based Financial Incentives Improve Equity of Primary Healthcare Access? Evidence From Australia.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1002/hec.70000
Karinna Saxby, Yuting Zhang
{"title":"Do Rurality-Based Financial Incentives Improve Equity of Primary Healthcare Access? Evidence From Australia.","authors":"Karinna Saxby, Yuting Zhang","doi":"10.1002/hec.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Australia, as in many other countries, people living in rural and remote areas experience poorer health outcomes and use less primary healthcare compared to urban populations. Aiming to reduce these inequities, in 2022 the Australian government increased rural-based financial incentives for General Practitioners (GPs) to \"bulk bill\" (i.e., provide care with zero patient out-of-pocket costs) children and concession card holders (low-income patients and older adults) living in rural and remote, but not urban areas. Using whole-of-population administrative data and exploiting variation in the eligibility of geographic areas to receive these incentives, we find that, compared to people living in urban areas, the reform led to a 2.7% (95% CI 2.2; 3.2) increase in the number of GP visits, a 9.0% (95% CI 8.4; 9.5) increase in the number of bulk billed GP visits, and a 13.0% (95% CI 12.4; 13.7) reduction in the out-of-pocket cost per GP visit among people living in rural areas. Effects were more pronounced for people with higher initial out-of-pocket costs-adults rather than children, people without concession cards, and people living in areas with less socioeconomic disadvantage. Altogether, while the reform has gone some way to reduce out-of-pocket costs for rural patients, benefits are unequal and inequities in access remain.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.70000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Australia, as in many other countries, people living in rural and remote areas experience poorer health outcomes and use less primary healthcare compared to urban populations. Aiming to reduce these inequities, in 2022 the Australian government increased rural-based financial incentives for General Practitioners (GPs) to "bulk bill" (i.e., provide care with zero patient out-of-pocket costs) children and concession card holders (low-income patients and older adults) living in rural and remote, but not urban areas. Using whole-of-population administrative data and exploiting variation in the eligibility of geographic areas to receive these incentives, we find that, compared to people living in urban areas, the reform led to a 2.7% (95% CI 2.2; 3.2) increase in the number of GP visits, a 9.0% (95% CI 8.4; 9.5) increase in the number of bulk billed GP visits, and a 13.0% (95% CI 12.4; 13.7) reduction in the out-of-pocket cost per GP visit among people living in rural areas. Effects were more pronounced for people with higher initial out-of-pocket costs-adults rather than children, people without concession cards, and people living in areas with less socioeconomic disadvantage. Altogether, while the reform has gone some way to reduce out-of-pocket costs for rural patients, benefits are unequal and inequities in access remain.

以农村为基础的财政激励措施能改善初级卫生保健获得的公平性吗?来自澳大利亚的证据。
与许多其他国家一样,在澳大利亚,与城市人口相比,生活在农村和偏远地区的人口健康状况较差,使用初级保健的人数也较少。为了减少这些不公平现象,澳大利亚政府在2022年增加了对全科医生(gp)的农村财政激励,以“大宗收费”(即为患者提供零自付费用的医疗服务)生活在农村和偏远地区的儿童和特许卡持有人(低收入患者和老年人),而不是城市地区。利用全国人口的行政数据,并利用地理区域获得这些激励的资格的变化,我们发现,与生活在城市地区的人相比,改革导致了2.7% (95% CI 2.2;3.2)全科医生就诊次数增加9.0% (95% CI 8.4;9.5)增加了全科医生的大量收费就诊次数,13.0%(95%可信区间12.4;13.7)减少农村地区居民每次看全科医生的自付费用。对于那些最初自付费用较高的人——成年人而不是儿童,没有优惠卡的人,以及生活在社会经济劣势较小地区的人——影响更为明显。总的来说,虽然改革在一定程度上减少了农村病人的自付费用,但福利不平等,在获得医疗服务方面的不平等仍然存在。
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
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信