4.3 Article

Modelling supply and demand influences on the use of health care: implications for deriving a needs-based capitation formula

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 985-1004

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/hec.830

关键词

utilisation models; supply; demand; needs-based allocation

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [M544285003] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many health-care systems allocate funding according to measures of need. The utilisation approach for measuring need rests on the assumptions that use of health care is determined by demand and supply and that need is an important element of demand. By estimating utilisation models which allow for supply it is possible to isolate the socioeconomic and health characteristics which affect demand. A subset of these variables can then be identified by a combination of judgement and further analysis as needs variables to inform funding allocations. We estimate utilisation models using newly assembled data on admissions to acute hospitals, measures of supply, morbidity and socio-economic characteristics for 8414 small geographical areas in England. We make a number of methodological innovations including deriving additional measures of specific morbidities at small area level from individual level survey data. We compare models with different specifications for, the effect of waiting times and provider characteristics, with total, planned and unplanned hospital admissions and estimated at small area (ward) and primary care orgainsation (general practice) level. After allowing for waiting times, distance, capacity and the availability of private health care, measures of mortality, self-reported morbidity, low education and low income increase the use of health care. We find evidence of-horizontal inequity with respect to ethnicity and employment and suggest a method for reducing its effects when deriving a needs-based allocation formula. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据