Changes in utilisation of optometry services with a non-targeted publicly-funded health care voucher system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the impact of a health care voucher scheme and service access barriers could facilitate optometry service promotion to the older population. BACKGROUND: A voucher is one strategy to improve the utilisation of the different health care services available in the private sector. This study aims to explore how a health care voucher system for older people impacts utilisation of optometry services from the perspective of service users and service providers. METHODS: People aged 65 years or above were recruited to fill in a structured questionnaire studying the usage characteristics and access barriers of optometry services and the health care voucher. Views from the optometrists about the voucher scheme were collected by questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 1156 valid questionnaires from eligible voucher users was collected. Results showed that 53.7% (621/1156) of participants had used optometry services within the past 2 years. Lack of familiarity with services provided, professional fees, and prices of spectacles were the main barriers to using optometry services. Of those participants who had used the voucher for optometry services previously, 80.4% (284/353) had an eye examination in the past 2 years. Among 389 optometrists who participated in the study, over 80% agreed that the voucher scheme improved awareness of major eye conditions and access to prescription spectacles when necessary. CONCLUSION: The health care voucher for older people improved access to optometry services. Access could be further improved by increasing price transparency of professional services and prescription spectacles. Responses from optometry service providers supported the view that the voucher scheme improved access to, and utilisation of, preventive care services.

Barriers to preventive care utilization among Hong Kong community-dwelling older people and their views on using financial incentives to improve preventive care utilization.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive is increasingly used as a mean to promote preventive care utilization (PCU), but the current Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme (EHCVS) in Hong Kong is ineffective for encouraging PCU. OBJECTIVE: To explore the older people's barriers to PCU and their views on financial incentive, including EHCVS, for improving private PCU. DESIGN AND SETTING: Focus-group discussions were conducted in community elderly centres located in five districts of Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older people aged 60 years or above. RESULTS: Lack of understanding about preventive care and low awareness of the need for preventive care were key factors for the low motivation for PCU. Uncertainty over the level of service fee charged and concerns over service quality hindered the choice of using the private service providers under the current EHCVS. Financial incentives specific for preventive care services were thought to be cues to actions and guides for service promotion. However, some flexibility in service coverage and a set time limit of the financial incentives were preferred to accommodate individual needs. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from promoting knowledge of preventive care, official monitoring for service fee and quality is important for empowering older people to choose private service providers for preventive care. Financial incentives for preventive care services should be more specific to cue service promotion and uptake of preventive care while maintaining flexibility to accommodate individual needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants were recruited using purposive sampling with the coordination of community elderly centres. Data were analysed using thematic coding.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy with different levels of financial incentive in a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To examine the impact of different levels of financial incentive in terms of fee subsidization on diabetic retinopathy screening in the private primary care setting in Hong Kong. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All general practitioners working in the private sector and registered in two electronic public databases were invited to participate. Consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus were then recruited by the participating practitioners. The recruited participants were randomly allocated to one of three screening groups with different fee levels (HK$0, HK$150 [US$19], HK$300 [US$39]) in a randomized controlled trial. Screening uptake and severity of diabetic retinopathy detected were compared. RESULTS: Out of 1,688 eligible practitioners, 105 participated and invited 402 patients, with 239 initially agreeing to participate (59.5%). After randomization, 78, 75 and 76 participants in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 fee groups, respectively, reconfirmed their participation and were offered screening at the relevant fee. The uptake of screening was 79.5% (62/78), 81.3% (61/75) and 63.2% (48/76), in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 groups, respectively (P < 0.018). Being in the HK$150 fee group was associated with higher uptake of screening than being in the HK$300 fee group (odds ratio 2.31, P = 0.039). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy (33.9%, 27.9% and 37.5%, P = 0.378) or sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (4.8%, 8.2% and 16.7%; P = 0.092) among the groups. CONCLUSION: A screening fee of HK$150, representing approximately a half subsidy, appears to be as effective in maximizing uptake as a full subsidy (HK$0) and without deterring those at high risk of diabetic retinopathy from screening.