Short communicationMeasurement of horizontal inequity in health care utilisation using European panel data
Introduction
An equitable system of health care delivery appears to remain a core objective in most of the OECD member states with comprehensive and universal coverage and proposed health system reforms usually quote equity preservation or improvement as an important goal (Van Doorslaer et al., 2006). Because in many countries horizontal equity is being interpreted as the principle of equal treatment for equal need, health economists have typically approached the measurement of inequity using inequality measures (Wagstaff and Van Doorslaer, 2000a). In most empirical work, horizontal inequity is measured as the degree to which utilisation is still related to income after differences in needs across the income distribution have been appropriately standardised for (Wagstaff and Van Doorslaer, 2000b). Several cross-country comparisons have adopted variants of these methods to compare across countries in the European Union (Van Doorslaer et al., 2004), in the OECD (Van Doorslaer et al., 2006) and in Asia (Lu et al., 2007).
Invariably, these comparative studies have relied on cross-sectional surveys and have adjusted for needs by comparing actual utilisation distributions (by income) with need-predicted utilisation using some regression-based standardization procedure. This means that adjustment can only be made for need differences that are observed in general, self-reported, health questions which are common across a large number of surveys. Typically, only a small fraction of the inter-individual variation in utilisation measures like doctor visits can be explained by these models. And while an individual's demographic and self-reported health characteristics are known to be very powerful predictors of health care utilisation, nonetheless most of the inter-individual variation remains unexplained.
This paper aims to go beyond the earlier approaches in at least three ways. First, the availability of the full eight waves of the European Community Household Panel (1994–2001), and the development of appropriate models for analysing panel utilisation data (Bago d’Uva, 2006, Bago d’Uva and Jones, 2009) provides an opportunity to further examine the unexplained variation in use. We use estimation results of the preferred specification to model our data in Bago d’Uva and Jones (2009), the latent class hurdle model. This specification captures the time-invariant components of individual unobserved heterogeneity, by modelling the latent class membership probabilities as functions of individual characteristics. Not only does this explain a greater share of the variation, it also allows for the possibility to partition the contribution of individual unobserved heterogeneity into need and non-need factors. In that way, some of the explicitly modelled individual heterogeneity can be included in the computation of the inequity index in much the same way as the observed heterogeneity.
Secondly, by using a multi-year period to assess the degree to which there are any deviations between actual and needed utilisation distributions, we move from a short to a more robust long-run perspective. Jones and López Nicolás (2004) have proposed short-run and long-run measures of income-related health inequality to examine the phenomenon of health-related income mobility. Adapting their method to our analyses of inequity in health care use, we are able to adopt a long-run perspective that accounts for this phenomenon. We find that the upwardly mobile in the income distribution are more likely to use health care, especially specialist services.
Finally, we propose a new measure of horizontal inequity in health care use that differs from the standard measure in the way that the variation left unexplained by the regression models is regarded, and which we label “conservative” index. The “conventional” index of horizontal inequity is defined as a residual and labels as inequity all income-related inequality in use that is not demonstrably related to needs. That means that all the residual income-related variation, not explained by either the need or the non-need variables, is assumed to be inequitable. But some of this residual variation may in fact be due to unobservable need differences. An alternative is to treat only the income-related inequality that is demonstrably related to non-need variables as our index of inequity. The difference between the two indices depends on the degree to which the income-related variation that is not due to included need and non-need variables is pro-rich or pro-poor. Our comparison shows that the “conservative” index tends to give higher estimates.
In what follows, we first explain how we will proceed with measuring inequity using panel data, then we describe the data we have used and the results obtained for the European countries considered. In the final section we discuss what we can and cannot conclude from this study.
Section snippets
Cross-sectional and longitudinal measures of inequality
We measure income-related inequality in the utilisation of health care (GP and specialist visits) in each wave t, using the concentration index CIt (Wagstaff et al., 1991, Kakwani et al., 1997) of the number of doctor visits. The concentration index takes on a positive/negative/zero value when there is pro-rich/pro-poor/no inequality.
Until recently, research on health equity by economists was focused on measures of socioeconomic inequalities in health and health care that were designed for use
Data
The data are taken from the European Community Household Panel User Database (ECHP-UDB). The standardised questionnaire allows for cross-country as well as longitudinal comparisons. We use all 8 waves available for 10 EU member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Austria joined the survey in 1995 (wave 2) and Finland only in 1996 (wave 3).5
Results
This section presents an analysis of horizontal inequity in the utilisation of primary (GP) and secondary (specialist) care for 10 EU member states. Predictions of (non-)need-expected health care utilisation were obtained as explained in Section 2.3, from LCH models estimated separately for each country and for GP and specialist visits by Bago d’Uva and Jones (2009). We then use the methods described in Section 2.2 to compute short-run indices (by wave), and their weighted average, and long-run
Conclusion
Achieving equitable access to health care for all citizens, irrespective of their incomes, remains an important public health policy goal in Europe's largely publicly funded health care systems. Key to the monitoring of the extent to which various systems are successful in attaining this goal is the appropriate and reliable measurement of the degree of inequity in the distribution of health care. Over the last two decades, Europe has invested heavily in the collection of comparable data to
Acknowledgements
The European Community Household Panel Users’ Database, version of December 2003, was supplied by Eurostat. This paper derives from the project “The dynamics of income, health and inequality over the lifecycle” (known as ECuity III Project), which is funded in part by the European Commission's Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources programme (contract QLK6-CT-2002-02297). Teresa Bago d’Uva was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, under PhD grant SFRH/BD/10551/2002. Teresa
References (23)
- et al.
Health care utilisation in Europe: new evidence from the ECHP
Journal of Health Economics
(2009) - et al.
Don’t give up on me baby: spousal correlation in smoking behaviour
Journal of Health Economics
(2006) - et al.
Socioeconomic inequalities in health: a comparative longitudinal analysis using the Ecuropean Community Household Panel
Social Science and Medicine
(2006) - et al.
Horizontal equity in health care utilisation—evidence from three high-income Asian economies
Social Science and Medicine
(2007) Equity in the delivery of health care in Europe and the US
Journal of Health Economics
(2000)- et al.
Equity in health care finance and delivery
- et al.
On the measurement of inequalities in health
Social Science and Medicine
(1991) - et al.
Equity in health
Latent class models for health care utilisation
Health Economics
(2006)- et al.
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
(2005)
Heterogeneity in reported well-being: evidence from twelve European countries
The Economic Journal
Cited by (94)
Analysing outpatient care access for planning purposes: The Basilicata Region experience
2023, Evaluation and Program PlanningContracts for primary and secondary care physicians and equity-efficiency trade-offs
2023, Journal of Health EconomicsEquity in the use of physician services in Canada's universal health system: A longitudinal analysis of older adults
2022, Social Science and MedicineExploring equity in accessing diabetes management treatment: A healthcare gap analysis
2022, Social Science and MedicineThe inverse care law re-examined: a global perspective
2021, The LancetBiomarkers, disability and health care demand
2020, Economics and Human Biology