Abstract

BackgroundMany jurisdictions have used public funding of health care to reduce or remove price at the point of delivery of services. Whilst this reduces an important barrier to accessing care, it does nothing to discriminate between groups considered to have greater or fewer needs. In this paper, we consider whether active targeted recruitment, in addition to offering a 'free' service, is associated with a reduction in social inequalities in self-reported utilization of the breast screening services in NSW, Australia.MethodsUsing the 1997 and 1998 NSW Health Surveys we estimated probit models on the probability of having had a screening mammogram in the last two years for all women aged 40–79. The models examined the relative importance of socio-economic and geographic factors in predicting screening behaviour in three different needs groups – where needs were defined on the basis of a woman's age.ResultsWe find that women in higher socio-economic groups are more likely to have been screened than those in lower groups for all age groups. However, the socio-economic effect is significantly less among women who were in the actively targeted age group.ConclusionThis indicates that recruitment and follow-up was associated with a modest reduction in social inequalities in utilisation although significant income differences remain.

Highlights

  • Many jurisdictions have used public funding of health care to reduce or remove price at the point of delivery of services

  • Any systematic variations in utilisation within a subgroup of the population with similar needs and similar capacity to benefit from health care would represent an inefficient allocation of resources [1]

  • Given that the distribution of needs for health care within populations is generally inversely related to the ability to pay for care, many jurisdictions have used public funding of health care to reduce or remove price at the point of delivery of services [2]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many jurisdictions have used public funding of health care to reduce or remove price at the point of delivery of services. Whilst this reduces an important barrier to accessing care, it does nothing to discriminate between groups considered to have greater or fewer needs. Any systematic variations in utilisation within a subgroup of the population with similar needs and similar capacity to benefit from health care would represent an inefficient allocation of resources [1]. Given that the distribution of needs for health care within populations is generally inversely related to the ability to pay for care, many jurisdictions have used public funding of health care to reduce or remove price at the point of delivery of services [2]. In other words, removing the price barrier to accessing care may increase utilisation among all groups, irrespective of their relative needs for care while needs-based differences in utilisation between rich and poor remain [2]

Methods
Results
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