Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. CONCLUSION: This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123222 .

'It was a big monetary cut'-A qualitative study on financial toxicity analysing patients' experiences with cancer costs in Germany.

Receiving information about expected costs promptly after a cancer diagnosis through psycho-oncology care or social counselling is crucial for patients to be prepared for the financial impact. Nevertheless, less is known about financial impacts for cancer patients in countries with statutory health insurance. This study aims to explore the full scope of costs that constitute the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis in Germany and to identify the reasons for high financial decline. Semistructured interviews with 39 cancer patients were conducted between May 2017 and April 2018. Narratives were analysed via qualitative content analysis. Several factors influenced cancer patients' indirect costs and direct medical and non-medical costs. For many patients, these changes resulted in higher indirect costs caused by income losses, especially when surcharges for shift work, travel expenses or company benefits ceased and were not reimbursed. Higher direct medical costs were caused by co-payments and additional non-refundable costs. Non-medical costs were reported to increase for some patients and to decrease for others, as for example, leisure activity costs either increasing because of pampering oneself to cope with the diagnosis and undergoing therapy or decreasing because of not being able to participate in leisure activities during therapy. When analysing the financial impacts of individuals' total costs, we found that some patients experienced no financial decline or an overall financial increase. Most patients experienced overall higher costs, and income loss was the main driver of a high financial decline. Nevertheless, decreased non-medical costs due to lower work-related and leisure activity costs could compensate for these higher costs. Cancer patients are confronted with a variety of changes in their financial situations, even in countries with statutory health insurance. Screening for cancer patients with a high risk of financial decline should consider any effects on indirect costs and direct medical and nonmedical costs.

"Good idea but not feasible" - the views of decision makers and stakeholders towards strategies for better palliative care in Germany: a representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Statements on potential measures to improve palliative care in Germany predominantly reflect the points of view of experts from specialized palliative care organizations. By contrast, relatively little is known about the views of representatives of organizations and institutions that do not explicitly specialize in palliative care, but are involved to a relevant extent in the decision-making and policy-making processes. Therefore, for the first time in Germany, we carried out a representative study of the attitudes of a broad range of different stakeholders acting at the national or state level of the health care system. METHODS: 442 organizations and institutions were included and grouped as follows: patient organizations, nursing organizations, medical associations, specialized palliative care organizations, political institutions, health insurance funds and others. Using a standardized questionnaire, the participants were asked to rate their agreement with the World Health Organization's definition of palliative care (five-point scale: 1 = completely agree, 5 = completely disagree) and to evaluate 18 pre-selected improvement measures with regard to their general meaningfulness and the feasibility of their introduction into the German health care system (two-point scale: 1 = good, 2 = poor). RESULTS: The response rate was 67%. Overall, the acceptance of the aims of palliative care in the WHO definition was strong. However, the level of agreement among health insurance funds' representatives was significantly less than that among representatives of the palliative care organizations. All the improvement measures selected for evaluation were rated significantly higher in respect of their meaningfulness than of their feasibility in Germany. In detail, the meaningfulness of 16 measures was evaluated positively (70-100% participants chose the answer "good"); for six of these measures feasibility was evaluated negatively (0-30% "good"), while for the remaining ten measures feasibility was evaluated inconsistently (31-69% "good"). CONCLUSION: The reason why potentially meaningful improvement measures are considered to be not very feasible in Germany may be the existence of barriers resulting from the high degree of fragmentation of health care provision and responsibilities. In overcoming these barriers and further improving palliative care it may be helpful that the basic understanding of the palliative care approach seems to be quite homogenous among the different groups.