评估欧洲金融保护指标的公平性和覆盖政策敏感性

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105136
{"title":"评估欧洲金融保护指标的公平性和覆盖政策敏感性","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Progress towards universal health coverage is monitored by the incidence of catastrophic spending. Two catastrophic spending indicators are commonly used in Europe: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.8.2 and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) indicator. The use of different indicators can cause confusion, especially if they produce contradictory results and policy implications. We use harmonised household budget survey data from 27 European Union countries covering 505,217 households and estimate the risk of catastrophic spending, conditional on household characteristics and the design of medicines co-payments. We calculate the predicted probability of catastrophic spending for particular households, which we call LISAs, under combinations of medicines co-payment policies and compare predictions across the two indicators. Using the WHO/Europe indicator, any combination of two or more protective policies (i.e. low fixed co-payments instead of percentage co-payments, exemptions for low-income households and income-related caps on co-payments) is associated with a statistically significant lower risk of catastrophic spending. Using the SDG indicator, confidence intervals for every combination of protective policies overlap with those for no protective policies. Although out-of-pocket medicines spending is a strong predictor of catastrophic spending using both indicators, the WHO/Europe indicator is more sensitive to medicines co-payment policies than the SDG indicator, making it a better indicator to monitor health system equity and progress towards UHC in Europe.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001465/pdfft?md5=e4f523d8e97b1d3f39cdba14795d94a2&pid=1-s2.0-S0168851024001465-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the equity and coverage policy sensitivity of financial protection indicators in Europe\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Progress towards universal health coverage is monitored by the incidence of catastrophic spending. Two catastrophic spending indicators are commonly used in Europe: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.8.2 and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) indicator. The use of different indicators can cause confusion, especially if they produce contradictory results and policy implications. We use harmonised household budget survey data from 27 European Union countries covering 505,217 households and estimate the risk of catastrophic spending, conditional on household characteristics and the design of medicines co-payments. We calculate the predicted probability of catastrophic spending for particular households, which we call LISAs, under combinations of medicines co-payment policies and compare predictions across the two indicators. Using the WHO/Europe indicator, any combination of two or more protective policies (i.e. low fixed co-payments instead of percentage co-payments, exemptions for low-income households and income-related caps on co-payments) is associated with a statistically significant lower risk of catastrophic spending. Using the SDG indicator, confidence intervals for every combination of protective policies overlap with those for no protective policies. Although out-of-pocket medicines spending is a strong predictor of catastrophic spending using both indicators, the WHO/Europe indicator is more sensitive to medicines co-payment policies than the SDG indicator, making it a better indicator to monitor health system equity and progress towards UHC in Europe.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001465/pdfft?md5=e4f523d8e97b1d3f39cdba14795d94a2&pid=1-s2.0-S0168851024001465-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001465\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001465","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过灾难性支出的发生率来监测全民医保的进展情况。欧洲通常使用两个灾难性支出指标:可持续发展目标(SDG)指标 3.8.2 和世界卫生组织欧洲区域办事处(WHO/Europe)指标。使用不同的指标可能会造成混乱,尤其是当它们产生相互矛盾的结果和政策影响时。我们使用了来自 27 个欧盟国家的统一家庭预算调查数据,涵盖 505 217 个家庭,并根据家庭特征和共同支付药物的设计来估算灾难性支出的风险。我们计算了特定家庭(我们称之为 LISAs)在各种共同支付政策组合下发生灾难性支出的预测概率,并比较了两种指标的预测结果。使用世界卫生组织/欧洲指标,两种或两种以上保护性政策(即低固定共付额而非百分比共付额、低收入家庭豁免和与收入相关的共付额上限)的任何组合都与灾难性支出风险的显著降低相关。使用可持续发展目标指标,每种保护性政策组合的置信区间都与无保护性政策的置信区间重叠。尽管使用这两个指标,自付药品支出都是灾难性支出的有力预测因素,但与 SDG 指标相比,世卫组织/欧洲指标对药品共同支付政策更为敏感,因此是监测欧洲卫生系统公平性和实现全民医保进展情况的更好指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessing the equity and coverage policy sensitivity of financial protection indicators in Europe

Progress towards universal health coverage is monitored by the incidence of catastrophic spending. Two catastrophic spending indicators are commonly used in Europe: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.8.2 and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) indicator. The use of different indicators can cause confusion, especially if they produce contradictory results and policy implications. We use harmonised household budget survey data from 27 European Union countries covering 505,217 households and estimate the risk of catastrophic spending, conditional on household characteristics and the design of medicines co-payments. We calculate the predicted probability of catastrophic spending for particular households, which we call LISAs, under combinations of medicines co-payment policies and compare predictions across the two indicators. Using the WHO/Europe indicator, any combination of two or more protective policies (i.e. low fixed co-payments instead of percentage co-payments, exemptions for low-income households and income-related caps on co-payments) is associated with a statistically significant lower risk of catastrophic spending. Using the SDG indicator, confidence intervals for every combination of protective policies overlap with those for no protective policies. Although out-of-pocket medicines spending is a strong predictor of catastrophic spending using both indicators, the WHO/Europe indicator is more sensitive to medicines co-payment policies than the SDG indicator, making it a better indicator to monitor health system equity and progress towards UHC in Europe.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
期刊最新文献
Identifying health inequities faced by older adults with rare diseases: A systematic literature review and proposal for an ethical spectrum and resource allocation framework Exploring assisted dying policies for mature minors: A cross jurisdiction comparison of the Netherlands, Belgium & Canada Health effects of introducing an unconditional child benefit in Poland: Evidence from a difference in differences analysis Freedom of choice for specialized consultation in Portugal: An observational analysis of response to hospital quality Enhancing rural community engagement through palliative care networks: A scoping review
×
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