Abstract

BackgroundHorizontal equity in access to public general practitioner (GP) services by socioeconomic group has been addressed econometrically by testing the statement “equal probability of using public GP services for equal health care needs, regardless of socioeconomic status”. Based on survey data, the conventional approach has been to estimate binomial econometric models in which when the respondent reports having visited a public GP, it counts as 1, otherwise it counts as 0. This is what we call a compartmentalised approach. Those respondents who did not visit a public GP but visited instead another doctor (specialist or private GP) would count as 0 (despite having used instead other modes of health care), thus conclusions of the compartmentalised approach might be biased. In such cases, a multinomial econometric model -that we called comprehensive approach- would be more appropriate to analyse horizontal equity in access to public GP services. The objective of this paper is to test for this potential bias by comparing a compartmentalised and a comprehensive approach, when analysing horizontal equity in access to public GP.MethodsUsing data from the 2016/17 Spanish National Health Survey, we estimate the probability of visiting a public GP as determined by socioeconomic status, health care need and demographic characteristics. We use binomial and multinomial logit and probit models in order to highlight the potential differences in the conclusions regarding socioeconomic inequities in access to public GP services. Socioeconomic status is proxied by education level, social class and employment situation.ResultsOur results show that conclusions are sensitive to the approach selected. Particularly, the horizontal inequity favouring individuals with lower education that resulted from the compartmentalised approach disappears under a comprehensive approach and only a social class effect remains.ConclusionAn analysis of horizontal equity in access to a particular health care service (like public GP services) undertaken following a compartmentalised approach should be compared with a comprehensive approach in order to test that there is no bias as a consequence of considering as zeros the utilisation of other types of health care.

Highlights

  • There is ample literature in health economics that analyses horizontal inequities in access to public sector general practitioner (GP) services by socioeconomic groups following an econometric approach

  • With the aim to test for this potential bias, the objective of this research is to study whether the compartmentalized approach to the problem of horizontal equity in access to public GP services reaches the same conclusions as a comprehensive approach in which, in addition to adjusting for variables of health care need and other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, we consider the use of other public and private health care services, avoiding an inappropriate treatment of zeros

  • 24.8% of individuals reported that the last visit they had in the past four weeks was made to a public GP

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is ample literature in health economics that analyses horizontal inequities in access to public sector general practitioner (GP) services by socioeconomic groups following an econometric approach. Regidor et al [4] study horizontal equity in the utilisation of public GP services in Spain using data from the 2003 Spanish national health survey They estimate the probability of visiting a GP through a binomial regression considering education level and social class variables among covariates. Abásolo et al [5] using the national health survey of 2006 and through multilevel binary logistic functions, analyse horizontal equity in the probability of utilisation of public health care services in Spain by socioeconomic groups They find that education level is negatively related to the probability of visiting a public GP. The objective of this paper is to test for this potential bias by comparing a compartmentalised and a comprehensive approach, when analysing horizontal equity in access to public GP

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call