4.6 Article

Measuring Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Health Care Services by Wealth Versus by Income

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 99, Issue 10, Pages 1849-1855

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.141499

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Commission [QLK6-CT-2001-00360, RII-CT-2006-062193, CIT5-CT-2005-028857]
  2. US National Institute on Aging [U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01, OGHA 04-064, R21 AG025169]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We compared the extent of socioeconomic differences in use of health care services based on wealth (i.e., accumulated assets) as the socioeconomic ranking variable with the extent of differences based on income to explore the sensitivity of the estimates of equity to the choice of the socioeconomic indicator. Methods. We used data from the Health and Retirement Study in the United States and the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe to estimate levels of income- and wealth-related disparity in use of physician and dental services among adults 50 or older in 12 countries. Results. We found socioeconomic differences in use of physician services after standardizing for need in about half of the countries studied. No consistent pattern in levels of disparity measured by wealth versus those measured by income was found. However, the rich were significantly more likely to use dental services in all countries. Wealth-related differences in dental service use were consistently higher than were income-related differences. Conclusions. We found some support for wealth as a more sensitive indicator of socioeconomic status among older adults than was income. Wealth may thus allow more accurate measurements of socioeconomic differences in use of health care services for this population. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:1849-1855. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.141499)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available