Identifying Longer-Term Health Events and Outcomes and Health Service Use of Low Birthweight CALD Infants in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one-third of all births in Australia each year are by culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women. CALD women are at an increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes including prematurity and low birthweight. Infants born weighing less than 2500 g are susceptible to increased risk of ill health and morbidities such as cognitive defects including cerebral palsy, and neuro-motor functioning. METHODS: An existing linked administrative dataset, Maternity 1000 was utilized for this study which has identified all children born in Queensland (QLD), Australia, between 1st July 2012 to 30th June 2018 from the QLD Perinatal Data Collection. This has then been linked to the QLD Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection, QLD Hospital Non-Admitted Patient Data Collection, QLD Emergency Department Data Collection, and Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claims Records between 1 and 2012 to 30th June 2019. RESULTS: Culturally and linguistically diverse infants born with low birthweight had higher mean and standard deviation of all health events and outcomes; potentially preventable hospitalisations, hospital re-admissions, ED presentations without admissions, and development of chronic diseases compared to non-CALD infants born with low birthweight. DISCUSSION: Results from this study highlight the disparities in health service use and health events and outcomes associated with low birthweight infants, between both CALD and Australian born women. This study has responded to the knowledge gap of low birthweight on the Australian economy by identifying that there are significant inequalities in access to health services for CALD women in Australia, as well as increased health events and poor birth outcomes for these infants when compared to those of mothers born in Australia.

The value of maternity care in Queensland, 2012-18, based on an analysis of administrative data: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the value of maternity health care - the relationship of outcomes to costs - in Queensland during 2012-18. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study; analysis of Queensland Perinatal Data Collection data linked with the Queensland Health Admitted Patient, Non-Admitted Patient, and Emergency Data Collections, and with the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) databases. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: All births in Queensland during 1 July 2012 - 30 June 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternity care costs per birth (reported in 2021-22 Australian dollars), both overall and by funder type (public hospital funders, MBS, PBS, private health insurers, out-of-pocket costs); value of care, defined as total cost per positive birth outcome (composite measure). RESULTS: The mean cost per birth (all funders) increased from $20 471 (standard deviation [SD], $17 513) during the second half of 2012 to $30 000 (SD, $22 323) during the first half of 2018; the annual total costs for all births increased from $1.31 billion to $1.84 billion, despite a slight decline in the total number of births. In a mixed effects linear analysis adjusted for demographic, clinical, and birth characteristics, the mean total cost per birth in the second half of 2018 was $9493 higher (99.9% confidence interval, $8930-10 056) than during the first half of 2012. The proportion of births that did not satisfy our criteria for a positive birth outcome increased from 27.1% (8404 births) during the second half of 2012 to 30.5% (9041 births) during the first half of 2018. CONCLUSION: The costs of maternity care have increased in Queensland, and many adverse birth outcomes have become more frequent. Broad clinical collaboration, effective prevention and treatment strategies, as well as maternal health services focused on all dimensions of value, are needed to ensure the quality and viability of maternity care in Australia.

Inequities in vulnerable children's access to health services in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Children born into families at risk of becoming or remaining poor are at significant risk of experiencing childhood poverty, which can impair their start to life, and perpetuate intergenerational cycles of poverty. This study sought to quantify health service utilisation, costs and funding distribution amongst children born into vulnerable compared to non-vulnerable families. METHODS: This study used a large linked administrative dataset for all women giving birth in Queensland, Australia between July 2012 and July 2018. Health service use included inpatient, emergency department (ED), general practice, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services. Costs included those paid by public hospital funders, private health insurers, Medicare and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: Vulnerable children comprised 34.1% of the study cohort. Compared with non-vulnerable children, they used significantly higher average numbers of ED services during the first 5 years of life (2.52±3.63 vs 1.97±2.77), and significantly lower average numbers of specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services. Vulnerable children incurred significantly greater costs to public hospital funders compared with non-vulnerable children over the first 5 years of life ($16 053 vs $10 247), and significantly lower private health insurer, Medicare and out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSION: There are clear inequities in vulnerable children's health service utilisation in Australia. Greater examination of the uptake and cost-effectiveness of maternal and child services is needed, as these services support children's development in the critical first 1000 days of life.

Inequality in early childhood chronic health conditions requiring hospitalisation: A data linkage study of health service utilisation and costs.

BACKGROUND: The cost of socioeconomic inequality in health service use among Australian children with chronic health conditions is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the cost of socioeconomic inequality in health service use among Australian children with chronic health conditions. METHODS: Cohort study using a whole-of-population linked administrative data for all births in Queensland, Australia, between July 2015 and July 2018. Socioeconomic status was defined by an areas-based measure, grouping children into quintiles from most disadvantaged (Q1) to least disadvantaged (Q5) based on their postcode at birth. Study outcomes included health service utilisation (inpatient, emergency department, outpatient, general practitioner, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services) and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Of the 238,600 children included in the analysis, 10.4% had at least one chronic health condition. Children with chronic health conditions in Q1 had higher rates of inpatient (6.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4, 6.7), emergency department (7.2, 95% CI 7.0, 7.5) and outpatient (20.3, 95% CI 19.4, 21.3) service use compared to children with chronic health conditions in Q5. They also had lower rates of general practitioner (37.5, 95% CI 36.7, 38.4), specialist (8.9, 95% CI 8.5, 9.3), pathology (10.7, 95% CI 10.2, 11.3), and diagnostic imaging (4.3, 95% CI 4.2,4.5) service use. Children with any chronic health condition in Q1 incurred lower median out-of-pocket fees than children in Q5 ($0 vs $741, respectively), lower median Medicare funding ($2710, vs $3408, respectively), and higher median public hospital funding ($31, 052 vs $23, 017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Children of most disadvantage are more likely to access public hospital provided services, which are accessible free of charge to patients. These children are less likely to access general practitioner, specialist, pathology and diagnostic imaging services; all of which are critical to the ongoing management of chronic health conditions, but often attract an out-of-pocket fee.

Inequality in out of pocket fees, government funding and utilisation of maternal health services in Australia.

This study aimed to assess the distribution of service utilisation, out-of-pocket fees and government funding for maternal health care in Australia by socioeconomic group. A large linked administrative dataset was utilised. Women were grouped into socioeconomic quintiles using an area-based measure of socioeconomic status. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the distribution of number of services, out of pocket fees, and government funding by socioeconomic quintile. Needs-adjusted concentration indices (CINA) were utilised to quantify inequity. The mean out of pocket fees for women of least socioeconomic advantage was $1,026 and for women of most socioeconomic advantage the mean was $2,432 (CINA 0.093, 95% CI: 0.088 - 0.098). However, use of many services were higher for women of most socioeconomic advantage: private obstetrician (CINA: 0.035, 95% CI: 0.032 - 0.038), other specialist services (CINA: 0.089, 95%CI: 0.083 - 0.094), and diagnostic and pathology tests (CINA: 0.027, 95%CI: 0.025 - 0.030). Federal government funding through Medicare was distributed towards women of most socioeconomic advantage (CINA: 0.036, 95%CI: 0.033 - 0.039); whereas government public hospital funding was skewed towards women of least socioeconomic advantage (CINA: -0.05, 95%CI: -0.057 - -0.046). Future policy changes in Australia's healthcare system need to ensure that women of least socioeconomic advantage have adequate access to maternity and early childhood care, and out of pocket fees are not an access barrier.

Health inequality in the tropics and its costs: a Sustainable Development Goals alert.

BACKGROUND: It is known that health impacts economic performance. This article aims to assess the current state of health inequality in the tropics, defined as the countries located between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, and estimate the impact of this inequality on gross domestic product (GDP). METHODS: We constructed a series of concentration indices showing between-country inequalities in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), taken from the Global Burden of Disease Study. We then utilized a non-linear least squares model to estimate the influence of health on GDP and counterfactual analysis to assess the GDP for each country had there been no between-country inequality. RESULTS: The poorest 25% of the tropical population had 68% of the all-cause DALYs burden in 2015; 82% of the communicable, maternal, neonatal and nutritional DALYs burden; 55% of the non-communicable disease DALYs burden and 61% of the injury DALYs burden. An increase in the all-cause DALYs rate of 1/1000 resulted in a 0.05% decrease in GDP. If there were no inequality between countries in all-cause DALY rates, most high-income countries would see a modest increase in GDP, with low- and middle-income countries estimated to see larger increases. CONCLUSIONS: There are large and growing inequalities in health in the tropics and this has significant economic cost for lower-income countries.

What are the costs of stillbirth? Capturing the direct health care and macroeconomic costs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Reducing stillbirth rates is an international priority; however, little is known about the cost of stillbirth. This analysis sought to quantify the costs of stillbirth in Australia. METHODS: Mothers and costs were identified by linking a state-based registry of all births between 2012 and 2015 to other administrative data sets. Costs from time of birth to 2 years postbirth were included. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between women who had a stillbirth and those that did not. Macroeconomic costs were estimated using value of lost output analysis and value of lost welfare analysis. RESULTS: Cost to government was on average $3774 more per mother who had a stillbirth compared with mothers who had a live birth. After accounting for gestation at birth, the cost of a stillbirth was 42% more than a live birth (P < .001). Costs for inpatient services, emergency department services, services covered under Medicare (such as primary and specialist care, diagnostic tests and imaging), and prescription pharmaceuticals were all significantly higher for mothers who had a stillbirth. Mothers who had a stillbirth paid on average $1479 out of pocket, which was 52% more than mothers who had a live birth after accounting for gestation at birth (P < .001). The value of lost output was estimated to be $73.8 million (95% CI: 44.0 million-103.9 million). The estimated value of lost social welfare was estimated to be $18 billion. DISCUSSION: Stillbirth has a sustained economic impact on society and families, which demonstrates the potential resource savings that could be generated from stillbirth prevention.

Is there a mismatch between who gets iron supplementation and who needs it? A cross-sectional study of iron supplements, iron deficiency anaemia and socio-economic status in Australia.

Fe deficiency anaemia (IDA) is more prevalent in lower socio-economic groups; however, little is known about who actually receives Fe supplements. This paper aims to determine whether the groups most likely to have IDA are the most likely to be taking Fe supplements. Logistic regression analysis was conducted using the cross-sectional, nationally representative National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey and National Health Measures Survey. After adjusting for other factors, those whose main language spoken at home was not English had twice the odds of having IDA compared with those whose main language spoken at home was English (95% CI 1·00, 4·32). Those who were not in the labour force also had twice the odds of having IDA as those who were employed (95% CI 1·16, 3·41). Those in income quintile 1 had 3·7 times the odds of having IDA compared with those in income quintile 5 (95% CI 1·42, 9·63). Those whose main language spoken at home was not English were significantly less likely to take Fe supplements (P=0·002) than those whose main language spoken at home was English. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of taking Fe supplements between those who were not in the labour force and those who were employed (P=0·618); between those who were in income quintile 1 and in higher income quintiles; and between males and females (P=0·854), after adjusting for other factors. There is a mismatch between those who are most in need of Fe supplements and those who currently receive them.