Health care utilization by immigrants in Italy.

Giuliana De Luca, Michela Ponzo, Antonio Rodríguez Andrés
{"title":"Health care utilization by immigrants in Italy.","authors":"Giuliana De Luca,&nbsp;Michela Ponzo,&nbsp;Antonio Rodríguez Andrés","doi":"10.1007/s10754-012-9119-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare utilization studies show how well documented disparities between migrants and non-migrants. Reducing such disparities is a major goal in European countries. However, healthcare utilization among Italian immigrants is under-studied. The objective of this study is to explore differences in healthcare use between immigrant and native Italians. Cross-sectional study using the latest available (2004/2005) Italian Health Conditions Survey. We estimated separate hurdle binomial negative regression models for GP, specialist, and telephone consultations and a logit model for emergency room (ER) use. We used logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression to model the zero (contact decision) and count processes (frequency decisions) respectively. Adjusting for risk factors, immigrants are significantly less likely to use healthcare services with 2.4 and 2.7 % lower utilization probability for specialist and telephone consultations, respectively. First- and second-generation immigrants' probability for specialist and telephone contact is significantly lower than natives'. Immigrants, ceteris paribus, have a much higher probability of using ERs than natives (0.7 %). First-generation immigrants show a higher probability of visiting ERs (1 %). GP visits show no significant difference. In conclusion Italian immigrants are much less likely to use specialist healthcare and medical telephone consultations than natives but more likely to use ERs. Hence, we report an over-use of ERs and under-utilization of preventive care among immigrants. We recommend improved health policies for immigrants: promotion of better information dissemination among them, simplification of organizational procedures, better communications between providers and immigrants, and an increased supply of health services for the most disadvantaged populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":73453,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health care finance and economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10754-012-9119-9","citationCount":"63","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health care finance and economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-012-9119-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

Abstract

Healthcare utilization studies show how well documented disparities between migrants and non-migrants. Reducing such disparities is a major goal in European countries. However, healthcare utilization among Italian immigrants is under-studied. The objective of this study is to explore differences in healthcare use between immigrant and native Italians. Cross-sectional study using the latest available (2004/2005) Italian Health Conditions Survey. We estimated separate hurdle binomial negative regression models for GP, specialist, and telephone consultations and a logit model for emergency room (ER) use. We used logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression to model the zero (contact decision) and count processes (frequency decisions) respectively. Adjusting for risk factors, immigrants are significantly less likely to use healthcare services with 2.4 and 2.7 % lower utilization probability for specialist and telephone consultations, respectively. First- and second-generation immigrants' probability for specialist and telephone contact is significantly lower than natives'. Immigrants, ceteris paribus, have a much higher probability of using ERs than natives (0.7 %). First-generation immigrants show a higher probability of visiting ERs (1 %). GP visits show no significant difference. In conclusion Italian immigrants are much less likely to use specialist healthcare and medical telephone consultations than natives but more likely to use ERs. Hence, we report an over-use of ERs and under-utilization of preventive care among immigrants. We recommend improved health policies for immigrants: promotion of better information dissemination among them, simplification of organizational procedures, better communications between providers and immigrants, and an increased supply of health services for the most disadvantaged populations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意大利移民的医疗保健利用情况。
医疗保健利用研究充分证明了移徙者和非移徙者之间的差异。减少这种差距是欧洲国家的一个主要目标。然而,意大利移民的医疗保健利用情况尚待研究。本研究的目的是探讨移民和本土意大利人在医疗保健使用方面的差异。采用最新的(2004/2005年)意大利健康状况调查进行横断面研究。我们估计了全科医生、专科医生和电话咨询的单独障碍二项负回归模型和急诊室(ER)使用的logit模型。我们分别使用逻辑回归和零截断负二项回归对零(接触决策)和计数过程(频率决策)进行建模。调整风险因素后,移民使用医疗保健服务的可能性显著降低,专家咨询和电话咨询的使用率分别降低了2.4%和2.7%。第一代和第二代移民与专家和电话联系的概率明显低于本地居民。在其他条件相同的情况下,移民使用er的概率比本地人高得多(0.7%)。第一代移民访问急诊室的概率更高(1%)。全科医生就诊无显著差异。综上所述,意大利移民使用专业医疗保健和医疗电话咨询的可能性远低于当地人,但更有可能使用急诊室。因此,我们报告了移民中急诊室的过度使用和预防保健的利用不足。我们建议改进移民保健政策:促进移民之间更好地传播信息,简化组织程序,改善提供者与移民之间的沟通,并增加向处境最不利的人口提供保健服务。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does a global budget superimposed on fee-for-service payments mitigate hospitals' medical claims in Taiwan? Payment generosity and physician acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The impact of global budgeting on treatment intensity and outcomes. Health care expenditure decisions in the presence of devolution and equalisation grants. Changing healthcare capital-to-labor ratios: evidence and implications for bending the cost curve in Canada and beyond.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1