Bleeding Hearts, Profiteers, or Both: Specialist Physician Fees in an Unregulated Market.

This study shows that, in an unregulated fee-setting environment, specialist physicians practise price discrimination on the basis of their patients' income status. Our results are consistent with profit maximisation behaviour by specialists. These findings are based on a large population survey that is linked to administrative medical claims records. We find that, for an initial consultation, specialist physicians charge their high-income patients AU$26 more than their low-income patients. While this gap equates to a 19% lower fees for the poorest patients (bottom 25% of the household income distribution), it is unlikely to remove the substantial financial barriers they face in accessing specialist care. There are large variations across specialties, with neurologists exhibiting the largest fee gap between the high-income and low-income patients. Several possible channels for deducing the patient's income are examined. We find that patient characteristics such as age, health concession card status and private health insurance status are all used by specialists as proxies for income status. These characteristics are particularly important to further practise price discrimination among the low-income patients but are less relevant for the high-income patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Rise and Fall in Out-of-Pocket Costs in Australia: An Analysis of the Strengthening Medicare Reforms.

After a period of steady decline, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for general practitioner (GP) consultations in Australia began increasing in the mid-1990s. Following the rising community concerns about the increasing costs, the Australian Government introduced the Strengthening Medicare reforms in 2004 and 2005, which included a targeted incentive for GPs to charge zero OOP costs for consultations provided to children and concession cardholders (older adults and the poor), as well as an increase in the reimbursement for all GP visits. This paper examines the impact of those reforms using longitudinal survey and administrative data from a large national sample of women. The findings suggest that the reforms were effective in reducing OOP costs by an average of $A0.40 per visit. Decreases in OOP costs, however, were not evenly distributed. Those with higher pre-reform OOP costs had the biggest reductions in OOP costs, as did those with concession cards. However, results also reveal increases in OOP costs for most people without a concession card. The analysis suggests that there has been considerable heterogeneity in GP responses to the reforms, which has led to substantial changes in the fees charged by doctors and, as a result, the OOP costs incurred by different population groups. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Community preferences in general practice: important factors for choosing a general practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the important factors for choosing a general practitioner (GP) can inform the provision of consumer information and contribute to the design of primary care services. OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors considered important when choosing a GP and to explore subgroup differences. DESIGN: An online survey asked about the respondent's experience of GP care and included 36 questions on characteristics important to the choice of GP. PARTICIPANTS: An Australian population sample (n = 2481) of adults aged 16 or more. METHODS: Principal components analysis identified dimensions for the creation of summated scales, and regression analysis was used to identify patient characteristics associated with each scale. RESULTS: The 36 questions were combined into five scales (score range 1-5) labelled: care quality, types of services, availability, cost and practice characteristics. Care quality was the most important factor (mean = 4.4, SD = 0.6) which included questions about technical care, interpersonal care and continuity. Cost (including financial and time cost) was also important (mean = 4.1, SD = 0.6). The least important factor was types of services (mean = 3.3, SD = 0.9), which covered the range of different services provided by or co-located with the practice. Frequent GP users and females had higher scores across all 5 scales, while the importance of care quality increased with age. CONCLUSIONS: When choosing a GP, information about the quality of care would be most useful to consumers. Respondents varied in the importance given to some factors including types of services, suggesting the need for a range of alternative primary care services.

Does patients' experience of general practice affect the use of emergency departments? Evidence from Australia.

AS Emergency Department (ED) attendances have been growing rapidly, various strategies have been employed in Australia to improve access to General Practitioner (GP) care, particularly after normal working hours, in order to reduce the demand for ED. However, there has been little attention paid to the quality of GP care and whether that influences ED attendances. This paper investigates whether ED use is affected by patients' experience of GP care, using the logit model to analyse data from a survey of Australian consumers (1758 individuals). Not surprisingly, we find that people with poor health status and a greater number of chronic conditions are more likely to visit the ED. We also find that, after correcting for health status and sociodemographic factors, patients with a better GP experience are less likely to visit the ED. This suggests that policies aimed at improving the quality of primary care are also important in reducing unplanned hospital use.

The prevalence of persistence and related health status: An analysis of persistently high healthcare costs in the short term and medium term.

Understanding whether high healthcare costs for individuals persist over time is critical for the development of policies that aim to reduce the prevalence of high cost patients. And while high healthcare costs will occur in any given year based on the prevalence of certain morbidities and acute conditions, a large random component of the distribution means that it is rarely the same people driving the bulk of healthcare expenditures. Using administrative data for over 250,000 Australian residents for the years between 2006 and 2011, we analyse the persistence of high annual healthcare costs. We examine the prevalence of high cost persistence in this sample, and then, we use endogenous switching models to identify the morbidity groups that are related with high cost persistence. These models also measure cases of cost amplification that are associated with a history of high cost healthcare. This analysis uses data from multiple categories of healthcare, specifically medical services, pharmaceuticals and admitted patient care. While there is a relatively low number of patients with persistent high cost (approximately 3% of the sample), this group accounted for 19% of aggregate expenditure. Pharmaceuticals were the most persistently high cost category of healthcare with 5% of the sample accounting for 32% of aggregate pharmaceutical expenditure. The morbidities associated with notable cost amplifications are morbidities that are hard to prevent or involve escalations of adverse health states that are difficult to avert. This casts doubt on whether broad policies can reduce the prevalence of individuals with persistently high healthcare costs.