Is cost a barrier to general practice for Australians with mental illness?

What is known about the topic? Cost is thought to be a barrier to access to primary care for people with mental illness. What does this paper add? Nearly three-quarters of clients of one mental health services do not report cost to be a barrier to primary care. What are the implications for practitioners? Efforts to help people with mental illness engage in primary care may be best directed towards areas other than the cost of access.

Is pay for performance promoting inverse inequality in Irish general practice?

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the Chronic Disease Management (CDM) programme was introduced in Ireland. This programme resources GPs to review public (GMS) patients, diagnosed with eight named chronic diseases, twice yearly according to a structured protocol. This pay for performance initiative has been widely adopted by GPs. However, it is hypothesised that private patients (PPs) receive a poorer standard of care, as they may be reluctant to attend due to the cost involved. AIM: To assess whether the management of eight chronic diseases named in the CDM programme is to the same standard among both PPs and GMS patients. METHOD: A retrospective audit of GP practices in the Midwest of Ireland. Data relating to 25 GMS patients and 25 PPs, matched by age, gender, and clinical condition, is collected from each practice. Patients have at least 1 of the eight named chronic diseases. Parameters include vaccination status (influenza, pneumococcal, COVID); body mass index; blood pressure; smoking status; renal function; HbA1c; lipid profile; brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in patients with heart failure; and lung function tests in patients with COPD or asthma. COVID vaccination status acts as a control because it is freely available for both PPs and GMS patients. RESULTS: Preliminary results from 2 GP practices show large consistent disparities in management between PPs and GMS patients in most parameters. CONCLUSION: Limiting Pay for Performance to the care of GMS patients only, based on age or income, promotes inverse inequality. We argue that CDM care should be offered to all patients.

An exploratory randomised trial investigating feasibility, potential impact and cost effectiveness of link workers for people living with multimorbidity attending general practices in deprived urban communities.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing link workers are non-health or social care professionals who connect people with psychosocial needs to non-clinical community supports. They are being implemented widely, but there is limited evidence for appropriate target populations or cost effectiveness. This study aimed to explore the feasibility, potential impact on health outcomes and cost effectiveness of practice-based link workers for people with multimorbidity living in deprived urban communities. METHODS: A pragmatic exploratory randomised trial with wait-list usual care control and blinding at analysis was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic (July 2020 to January 2021). Participants had two or more ongoing health conditions, attended a general practitioner (GP) serving a deprived urban community who felt they may benefit from a one-month practice-based social prescribing link worker intervention.. Feasibility measures were recruitment and retention of participants, practices and link workers, and completion of outcome data. Primary outcomes at one month were health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and mental health (HADS). Potential cost effectiveness from the health service perspective was evaluated using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on conversion of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A capability index to utility scoring. RESULTS: From a target of 600, 251 patients were recruited across 13 general practices. Randomisation to intervention (n = 123) and control (n = 117) was after baseline data collection. Participant retention at one month was 80%. All practices and link workers (n = 10) were retained for the trial period. Data completion for primary outcomes was 75%. There were no significant differences identified using mixed effects regression analysis in EQ-5D-5L (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.09) or HADS (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.73), and no cost effectiveness advantages. A sensitivity analysis that considered link workers operating at full capacity in a non-pandemic setting, indicated the probability of effectiveness at the €45,000 ICER threshold value for Ireland was 0.787 using the ICECAP-A capability index. CONCLUSIONS: While the trial under-recruited participants mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, it demonstrates that robust evaluations and cost utility analyses are possible. Further evaluations are required to establish cost effectiveness and should consider using the ICE-CAP-A wellbeing measure for cost utility analysis. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ISRCTN. TITLE: Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas. TRIAL ID: ISRCTN10287737. Date registered 10/12/2019. Link: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10287737.

An area-based analysis of general practice fees in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Introduction The pursuit of health care equity is a fundamental objective for Aotearoa New Zealand, and patient co-payments in primary care challenge this goal. Aim This study aimed to investigate the relationship between primary health care co-payments and the sociodemographic variables in areas where general practices provide health care. Methods Using census data, facilities information from the Ministry of Health, and socioeconomic deprivation indices, linear regression models were used to explore the relationship between weighted average fees charged by general practices and various sociodemographic variables in statistical area 2 regions. Results The study finds that areas with higher proportions of males and economically deprived individuals are associated with lower weighted average fees. Conversely, areas with higher proportions of retirement-aged and European individuals are linked with higher weighted average fees. The inclusion of the Very-Low-Cost-Access variable, indicating a subsidy scheme at the general practice level, made all the sociodemographic variables practically insignificant, suggesting Very-Low-Cost-Access practices are in the right geographical location to target high needs groups. Discussion The findings affirm the complexity of health care inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand, influenced not only by financial factors but also by demographic variables as they play out geographically. While subsidy schemes like the Very-Low-Cost-Access scheme appear to reach groups with greater need, a high level of unmet need due to cost suggests that the fees are still too high. Policymakers need to consider disparities in the on-going health care reforms and make further changes to subsidy schemes to reduce unmet need.

Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm. AIM: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings. METHOD: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios. RESULTS: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs. CONCLUSION: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Implementing the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in seven English Primary Care Networks: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) provides funding to Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in England to recruit additional staff into specified roles. The intention was to support general practice by recruiting an extra 26 000 staff by 2024, increasing access and easing workload pressures. AIM: To explore the establishment of the ARRS as part of PCNs' development to understand their role in supporting general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal, qualitative case study involving seven geographically dispersed PCNs across England. METHOD: Data were collected from July 2020 to March 2022, including 91 semi-structured interviews and 87 h of meeting observations. Transcripts were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Implementation of the ARRS was variable across the study sites, but most shared similar experiences and concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the introduction of the new roles, and significant variability was found in modes of employment. Cross-cutting issues included: the need for additional space to accommodate new staff; the inflexibility of aspects of the scheme, including reinvestment of unspent funds; and the need for support and oversight of employed staff. Perceived benefits of the ARRS include improved patient care and the potential to save GP time. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest the ARRS has potential to fulfil its objective of supporting and improving access to general practice. However, attention to operational requirements including appropriate funding, estates, and management of staff is important if this is to be realised, as is clarity for the scheme post-contract end in 2024.

Drug company payments to General Practices in England: Cross-sectional and social network analysis.

Although there has been extensive research on pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations with key roles in health systems have received little attention. We seek to contribute to addressing this gap in research by examining drug company payments to General Practices in England in 2015. We combine a publicly available payments database managed by the pharmaceutical industry with datasets covering key practice characteristics. We find that practices were an important target of company payments, receiving £2,726,018, equivalent to 6.5% of the value of payments to all healthcare organisations in England. Payments to practices were highly concentrated and specific companies were also highly dominant. The top 10 donors and the top 10 recipients amassed 87.9% and 13.6% of the value of payments, respectively. Practices with more patients, a greater proportion of elderly patients, and those in more affluent areas received significantly more payments on average. However, the patterns of payments were similar across England's regions. We also found that company networks-established by making payments to the same practices-were largely dominated by a single company, which was also by far the biggest donor. Greater policy attention is required to the risk of financial dependency and conflicts of interests that might arise from payments to practices and to organisational conflicts of interests more broadly. Our research also demonstrates that the comprehensiveness and quality of payment data disclosed via industry self-regulatory arrangements needs improvement. More interconnectivity between payment data and other datasets is needed to capture company marketing strategies systematically.

The inequity of access to health: a case study of patients with gout in one general practice.

AIM: Gout is a health equity issue for Maori and Pacific peoples because disparities in quality of care exist. This study aims to describe domains of access that may contribute to the optimisation of gout care and, therefore, address health inequity. METHODS: The practice management system at one general practice in Auckland was used to identify enrolled patients with gout, using disease codes and medication lists. Barriers to access for the cohort were investigated using staff knowledge and the practice management system. The general practice is uniquely situated within an urban marae (traditional meeting house) complex serving a predominantly Maori community. This enables a focus on domains of access other than cultural safety. RESULTS: Of 3,095 people enrolled at the practice, 268 were identified as having gout. Of these, 94% had at least one other long-term health condition. The majority of people with gout enrolled at the practice have employment roles incongruent with the clinic's opening hours. CONCLUSIONS: Social circumstances, such as employment and availability of transport, should be actively discussed with all patients and recorded in the practice management system. Reorientation of health services, including hours of access, is evidentially required to ensure optimal management of gout and possibly other health conditions.

Empty waiting rooms: the New Zealand general practice experience with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: The primary care response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020 required significant changes to the delivery of healthcare by general practices. This study explores the experiences of New Zealand general practice teams in their use of telehealth during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. METHOD: We qualitatively analysed a subtheme on telehealth of the General Practice Pandemic Experience New Zealand (GPPENZ) study, where general practice team members across the country were invited to participate in five surveys between 8 May 2020 to 27 August 2020. RESULTS: 164 participants enrolled in the study during survey one, with 78 (48%) completing all surveys. Five telehealth themes were identified: benefits, limitations, paying for consults, changes over time and plans for future use. Benefits included rapid triage, convenience and efficiency, and limitations included financial and technical barriers for practices and patients and concerns about clinical risk. Respondents rapidly returned to in-person consultations and wanted clarification of conditions suited to telehealth, better infrastructure and funding. CONCLUSION: To equitably sustain telehealth use, the following are required: adequate funding, training, processes communicated to patients, improved patient access to technology and technological literacy, virtual physical examination methods and integration with existing primary health care services.

Emergency COVID-19 funding to general practices in early 2020: lessons for future allocation to support equity.

AIM: To (1) describe the distribution of Ministry of Health (MOH) COVID-19 emergency funding to general practices in March and April 2020 and (2) consider whether further funding to general practices should be allocated differently to support equity for patients. METHODS: Emergency funding allocation criteria and funding amounts by general practice were obtained from the MOH. Practices were stratified according to their proportion of high-needs enrolled patients (Maori, Pacific or living in an area with the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation). Funding per practice was calculated for separate and total payments according to practice stratum of high-needs enrolled patients. RESULTS: The median combined March and April funding for general practices with 80% high-needs patients was 28% higher per practice ($36,674 vs $28,686) and 48% higher per patient ($10.50 vs $7.11) compared with the funding received by general practices with fewer than 20% high-needs patients. Although the March allocation did increase funding for high-needs patients, the April allocation did not. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency support funding for general practices was organised by the MOH at short notice and in exceptional circumstances. In the future, the MOH should apply pro-equity resource allocation in all emergencies, as with other circumstances.

Urban or Rural GP? In the Czech Republic It Is not just Distances That Matter.

This article proposes a combined mixed methods approach to categorising GP practices. It looks not only at location but also at differences in the nature of the work that rural GPs perform. A data analysis was conducted of the largest health insurance company in the Czech Republic (5.9 million patients, 60% of the population, 100% coverage within the Czech Republic). We performed two data analyses, one for 2014-2015 and one for 2016, and divided GP practices into urban, intermediate, and rural groups (taking into account the OECD methodology). We compared groups in terms of the total annual cost in CZK per adult registered insurance holders. The total volume of data indicated the financial costs of €1.52 billion and €2.57 billion respectively. Both analysis showed differences between all groups of practises which confirmed the assumption that the work of the GP is influenced by regionality. A multidisciplinary hospital is the main factor that fundamentally affects the way a GP's work in that area. The proposed principle of categorising general practices combines geographical and cost characteristics. This requires knowledge of the cost data of healthcare payer and on the basic demographic knowledge of the area. We suggest this principe may be transferrable and particularly suitable for categorising general practice.

Resource allocation for depression management in general practice: A simple data-based filter model.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to illustrate the potential utility of a simple filter model in understanding the patient outcome and cost-effectiveness implications for depression interventions in primary care. METHODS: Modelling of hypothetical intervention scenarios during different stages of the treatment pathway was conducted. RESULTS: Three scenarios were developed for depression related to increasing detection, treatment response and treatment uptake. The incremental costs, incremental number of successes (i.e., depression remission) and the incremental costs-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. In the modelled scenarios, increasing provider treatment response resulted in the greatest number of incremental successes above baseline, however, it was also associated with the greatest ICER. Increasing detection rates was associated with the second greatest increase to incremental successes above baseline and had the lowest ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend utility of the filter model to guide the identification of areas where policy stakeholders and/or researchers should invest their efforts in depression management.

General practitioners' income and activity: the impact of multi-professional group practice in France.

France has first experimented, in 2009, and then generalized a practice level add-on payment to promote Multi-Professional Primary Care Groups (MPCGs). Team-based practices are intended to improve both the efficiency of outpatient care supply and the attractiveness of medically underserved areas for healthcare professionals. To evaluate its financial attractiveness and thus the sustainability of MPCGs, we analyzed the evolution of incomes (self-employed income and wages) of General Practitioners (GPs) enrolled in a MPCG, compared with other GPs. We also studied the impacts of working in a MPCG on GPs' activity through both the quantity of medical services provided and the number of patients encountered. Our analyses were based on a quasi-experimental design, with a panel dataset over the period 2008-2014. We accounted for the selection into MPCG by using together coarsened exact matching and difference-in-differences (DID) design with panel-data regression models to account for unobserved heterogeneity. We show that GPs enrolled in MPCGs during the period exhibited an increase in income 2.5% higher than that of other GPs; there was a greater increase in the number of patients seen by the GPs' (88 more) without involving a greater increase in the quantity of medical services provided. A complementary cross-sectional analysis for 2014 showed that these changes were not detrimental to quality in terms of bonuses related to the French pay-for-performance program for the year 2014. Hence, our results suggest that labor and income concerns should not be a barrier to the development of MPCGs, and that MPCGs may improve patient access to primary care services.

Are Unit Costs the Same? A Case Study Comparing Different Valuation Methods for Unit Cost Calculation of General Practitioner Consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To inform allocation decisions in any healthcare system, robust cost data are indispensable. Nevertheless, recommendations on the most appropriate valuation approaches vary or are nonexistent, and no internationally accepted gold standard exists. This costing analysis exercise aims to assess the impact and implications of different calculation methods and sources based on the unit cost of general practitioner (GP) consultations in Austria. METHODS: Six costing methods for unit cost calculation were explored, following 3 Austrian methodological approaches (AT-1, AT-2, AT-3) and 3 approaches applied in 3 other European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom). Drawing on Austrian data, mean unit costs per GP consultation were calculated in euros for 2015. RESULTS: Mean unit costs ranged from €15.6 to €42.6 based on the German top-down costing approach (DE) and the Austrian Physicians' Chamber's price recommendations (AT-3), respectively. The mean unit cost was estimated at €18.9 based on Austrian economic evaluations (AT-1) and €17.9 based on health insurance payment tariffs (AT-2). The Dutch top-down (NL) and the UK bottom-up approaches (UK) yielded higher estimates (NL: €25.3, UK: €29.8). Overall variation reached 173%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to systematically investigate the impact of differing calculation methods on unit cost estimates. It shows large variations with potential impact on the conclusions in an economic evaluation. Although different methodological choices may be justified by the adopted study perspective, different costing approaches introduce variation in cross-study/cross-country cost estimates, leading to decreased confidence in data quality in economic evaluations.