{"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.
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。
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.