Out-of-pocket expenditure, need, utilisation, and private health insurance in the Australian healthcare system.

IF 1.5 4区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE International Journal of Health Economics and Management Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-11 DOI:10.1007/s10754-023-09362-z
Timothy Ludlow, Jonas Fooken, Christiern Rose, Kam Ki Tang
{"title":"Out-of-pocket expenditure, need, utilisation, and private health insurance in the Australian healthcare system.","authors":"Timothy Ludlow, Jonas Fooken, Christiern Rose, Kam Ki Tang","doi":"10.1007/s10754-023-09362-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite widespread public service provision, public funding, and private health insurance (PHI), 20% of all healthcare expenditure across the OECD is covered by out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). This creates an equity concern for the increasing number of individuals with chronic conditions and greater need, particularly if higher need coincides with lower income. Theoretically, individuals may mitigate OOPE risk by purchasing PHI, replacing variable OOPE with fixed expenditure on premiums. Furthermore, if PHI premiums are not risk-rated, PHI may redistribute some of the financial burden from less healthy PHI holders that have greater need to healthier PHI holders that have less need. We investigate if the burden of OOPE for individuals with greater need increases less strongly for individuals with PHI in the Australian healthcare system. The Australian healthcare system provides public health insurance with full, partial, or limited coverage, depending on the healthcare service used, and no risk rating of PHI premiums. Using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey we find that individuals with PHI spend a greater share of their disposable income on OOPE and that the difference in OOPE share between PHI and non-PHI holders increases with greater need and utilisation, contrary to the prediction that PHI may mitigate OOPE. We also show that OOPE is a greater concern for poorer individuals for whom the difference in OOPE by PHI is the greatest.</p>","PeriodicalId":44403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960905/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-023-09362-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite widespread public service provision, public funding, and private health insurance (PHI), 20% of all healthcare expenditure across the OECD is covered by out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). This creates an equity concern for the increasing number of individuals with chronic conditions and greater need, particularly if higher need coincides with lower income. Theoretically, individuals may mitigate OOPE risk by purchasing PHI, replacing variable OOPE with fixed expenditure on premiums. Furthermore, if PHI premiums are not risk-rated, PHI may redistribute some of the financial burden from less healthy PHI holders that have greater need to healthier PHI holders that have less need. We investigate if the burden of OOPE for individuals with greater need increases less strongly for individuals with PHI in the Australian healthcare system. The Australian healthcare system provides public health insurance with full, partial, or limited coverage, depending on the healthcare service used, and no risk rating of PHI premiums. Using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey we find that individuals with PHI spend a greater share of their disposable income on OOPE and that the difference in OOPE share between PHI and non-PHI holders increases with greater need and utilisation, contrary to the prediction that PHI may mitigate OOPE. We also show that OOPE is a greater concern for poorer individuals for whom the difference in OOPE by PHI is the greatest.

Abstract Image

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
澳大利亚医疗保健系统的自付支出、需求、利用率和私人医疗保险。
尽管提供了广泛的公共服务、公共资金和私人医疗保险(PHI),但经合组织20%的医疗支出由自付支出(OOPE)支付。这就为越来越多的慢性病患者和更大需求的人带来了公平的担忧,尤其是在更高需求与更低收入同时出现的情况下。从理论上讲,个人可以通过购买PHI来降低OOPE风险,用固定的保费支出取代可变的OOPE。此外,如果PHI保费未进行风险评级,则PHI可能会将一些财务负担从有更大需求的不太健康的PHI持有人重新分配给有更少需求的更健康PHI持有人。我们调查了在澳大利亚医疗系统中,有更大需求的人的OOPE负担是否对患有PHI的人增加得不那么强烈。澳大利亚医疗保健系统根据所使用的医疗保健服务提供全覆盖、部分覆盖或有限覆盖的公共医疗保险,并且没有PHI保费的风险评级。利用澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查的数据,我们发现,患有PHI的个人将其可支配收入的更大份额用于OOPE,并且PHI和非PHI持有者之间的OOPE份额差异随着需求和利用率的增加而增加,这与PHI可能缓解OOPE的预测相反。我们还表明,OOPE是穷人更关心的问题,对他们来说,PHI的OOPE差异最大。
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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The focus of the International Journal of Health Economics and Management is on health care systems and on the behavior of consumers, patients, and providers of such services. The links among management, public policy, payment, and performance are core topics of the relaunched journal. The demand for health care and its cost remain central concerns. Even as medical innovation allows providers to improve the lives of their patients, questions remain about how to efficiently deliver health care services, how to pay for it, and who should pay for it. These are central questions facing innovators, providers, and payers in the public and private sectors. One key to answering these questions is to understand how people choose among alternative arrangements, either in markets or through the political process. The choices made by healthcare managers concerning the organization and production of that care are also crucial. There is an important connection between the management of a health care system and its economic performance. The primary audience for this journal will be health economists and researchers in health management, along with the larger group of health services researchers. In addition, research and policy analysis reported in the journal should be of interest to health care providers, managers and policymakers, who need to know about the pressures facing insurers and governments, with consequences for regulation and mandates. The editors of the journal encourage submissions that analyze the behavior and interaction of the actors in health care, viz. consumers, providers, insurers, and governments. Preference will be given to contributions that combine theoretical with empirical work, evaluate conflicting findings, present new information, or compare experiences between countries and jurisdictions. In addition to conventional research articles, the journal will include specific subsections for shorter concise research findings and cont ributions to management and policy that provide important descriptive data or arguments about what policies follow from research findings. The composition of the editorial board is designed to cover the range of interest among economics and management researchers.Officially cited as: Int J Health Econ ManagFrom 2001 to 2014 the journal was published as International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. (Articles published in Vol. 1-14 officially cited as: Int J Health Care Finance Econ)
期刊最新文献
Feeling discriminated means poor self-perceived health: a gender analysis using SHARE. Vaccination strategies for different contact patterns: weighing epidemiological against economic outcomes. The effect of health facility ownership on perceived healthcare quality: evidence from Ghana Internet use, dietary habits and adolescent obesity: evidence from China. The effect of health facility births on newborn mortality in Malawi.
×
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