Inequity in healthcare use among the indigenous population living in non-remote areas of Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Although several studies have examined the gap in healthcare use between indigenous and non-indigenous people, empirical evidence on inequity in healthcare use within indigenous populations is limited. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by investigating income-related inequity (unequal use for equal need) in healthcare use among indigenous Australians living in non-remote areas. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. METHODS: This study used data from the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, 2012-13. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of income with the probability of a general practitioner (GP) visit, a specialist visit and inpatient admission. The horizontal inequity (HI) index and decomposition analysis were also used to quantify and explain inequity in healthcare use. RESULTS: No consistent association was found between income and the probability of GP visit or inpatient admission after controlling for health need. However, the likelihood of visiting a specialist was about three times (odds ratio = 2.96, P = 0.028) higher for the richest compared with the poorest population subgroups. The inequity index was 0.016 (P < 0.001), indicating a pro-rich inequity for the probability of visiting a specialist. Income inequality, unequal distribution of private health insurance and inequality in education were the main factors explaining the pro-rich inequity in specialist utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no income-related inequity in GP visits or inpatient admissions, wealthier indigenous Australians had a higher probability of visiting a specialist than their poorer counterparts, after adjusting for need. Specific policies and initiatives are required to address the inequity faced by low-income indigenous people in Australia.

Personal protection and delivery of rhinologic and endoscopic skull base procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak.

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 pandemic, with subsequent profound impact on the entire health care system. During the COVID-19 outbreak, activities in the rhinology outpatient clinic and operation rooms are limited to emergency care only. Health care practitioners are faced with the need to perform rhinological and skull base emergency procedures in patients with a positive or unknown COVID-19 status. This article aims to provide recommendations and relevant information for rhinologists, based on the limited amount of (anecdotal) data, to guarantee high-quality patient care and adequate levels of infection prevention in the rhinology clinic.

Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

Adapting portfolio theory for the evaluation of multiple investments in health with a multiplicative extension for treatment synergies.

Portfolio theory is central to the analysis of risk in many areas of economics but is seldom used appropriately in health economics. This contribution examines the use of portfolio theory in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). A number of modifications are needed to apply portfolio analysis to the economic evaluation of health care interventions. First, the method of reporting the results of a CEA, and consequently some of the underlying assumptions, needs to be modified. Second, portfolio theory needs to be expressed in terms of effects on individuals aggregated to a population. Finally, one needs to allow for the possibility of synergy between the various health interventions. This paper derives a general formula for a portfolio of health care interventions that allows for synergies between interventions where the population effects are aggregated from individual effects. A number of special cases are also derived to highlight the nature of the formulation of the modified portfolio theory. We conclude that, while modified portfolio theory adds a theoretical foundation to health care evaluations, it may not be operational until estimates of the correlation between interventions are available, and the question of uncertainty is resolved in health care evaluation. Also, while a synergy may be present at the individual level, when aggregated over a large population it may not be significant given the standard assumption of constant returns to scale.

From flying doctor to virtual doctor: an economic perspective on Australia's telemedicine experience.

Current funding mechanisms can impede the efficient use and integration of telemedicine services. Telemedicine has developed in Australia against a background of complex funding arrangements and interwoven health-care responsibilities. These impediments are not unique to telemedicine but are accentuated by its ability to cover different locations, clinical areas and purposes. There is also a link between economic evaluation and funding mechanisms for telemedicine. While economic evaluations provide important information for the efficient allocation of resources, the funding environment in which telemedicine is established is also crucial in ensuring that services are efficient. Given these complexities, should telemedicine be funded? We conclude that this will depend on: the objectives and priorities of the health system; the efficiency of telemedicine relative to that of other forms of health-care delivery; and the funding environment. In terms of resource allocation processes, the optimum scenario is likely to be where the decision to invest in telemedicine services is made taking local needs into account, but where considerations such as market structure and network compatibility are examined on a broader scale and balanced against the principles of efficiency and equity.