BackgroundPoor health increases the likelihood of experiencing poverty by reducing a person’s ability to work and imparting costs associated with receiving medical treatment. Universal health care is a means of protecting against the impoverishing impact of high healthcare costs. This study aims to document the recent trends in the amount paid by Australian households out-of-pocket for healthcare, identify any inequalities in the distribution of this expenditure, and to describe the impact that healthcare costs have on household living standards in a high-income country with a long established universal health care system. We undertook this analysis using a longitudinal, nationally representative dataset – the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, using data collected annually from 2006 to 2014. Out of pocket payments covered those paid to health practitioners, for medication and in private health insurance premiums; catastrophic expenditure was defined as spending 10% or more of household income on healthcare.ResultsAverage total household expenditure on healthcare items remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2014 after adjusting for inflation, changing from $3133 to $3199. However, after adjusting for age, self-reported health status, and year, those in the lowest income group (decile one) had 15 times the odds (95% CI, 11.7–20.8) of having catastrophic health expenditure compared to those in the highest income group (decile ten). The percentage of people in income decile 2 and 3 who had catastrophic health expenditure also increased from 13% to 19% and 7% to 13% respectively.ConclusionsOngoing monitoring of out of pocket healthcare expenditure is an essential part of assessing health system performance, even in countries with universal health care.
Background: Reducing stillbirth rates is an international priority; however, little is known about the cost of stillbirth. This analysis sought to quantify the costs of stillbirth in Australia. Methods: Mothers and costs were identified by linking a state-based registry of all births between 2012 and 2015 to other administrative data sets. Costs from time of birth to 2 years postbirth were included. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between women who had a stillbirth and those that did not.Macroeconomic costs were estimated using value of lost output analysis and value of lost welfare analysis. Results: Cost to government was on average $3774 more per mother who had a stillbirth compared with mothers who had a live birth. After accounting for gestation at birth, the cost of a stillbirth was 42% more than a live birth (P < .001). Costs for inpatient services, emergency department services, services covered underMedicare (such as primary and specialist care, diagnostic tests and imaging), and prescription pharmaceuticals were all significantly higher for mothers who had a stillbirth. Mothers who had a stillbirth paid on average $1479 out of pocket, which was 52% more than mothers who had a live birth after accounting for gestation at birth (P < .001). The value of lost output was estimated to be $73.8 million (95% CI: 44.0 million-103.9 million). The estimated value of lost social welfare was estimated to be $18 billion. Discussion: Stillbirth has a sustained economic impact on society and families, which demonstrates the potential resource savings that could be generated from stillbirth prevention.
IntroductionThe current literature in Australia demonstrates that there are variations in access and outcomes in perinatal care based on socioeconomic factors. However, little has been done looking at the level of out-of-pocket healthcare costs associated with perinatal care. The primary aim of this project will be to quantify health service use and out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure associated with childbearing and early childhood in Queensland, Australia.Methods and analysisThis project will build Australia’s first model (called Maternal & Child Cost MOD) of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure by using administrative data from the Queensland Perinatal Data Collection, of all childbearing women and their resultant children, who gave birth in Queensland between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2016.The current costs to the health system and out-of-pocket health care expenditure of patients associated with maternity and early childhood health care will be identified. The differences in costs based on indigenous identification, socioeconomic status and geographic location will be assessed using linear regression modelling and counterfactual modelling techniques.Ethics and disseminationHuman Research Ethics approval has been obtained from Townsville Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC Reference number: HREC/16/QTHS/223). Consent will not be sought from participants whose de-identified data will be used in this study. Permission to waive consent has been gained from Queensland Health under the Public Health Act 2005.The results of this study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and through presentations at conferences, regionally and nationally. Our target audience is clinicians, health professionals and health policy-makers.
Objective. This study sought to compare costs for women giving birth in different public hospital services across Queensland and their babies.Methods. A whole-of-population linked administrative dataset was used containing all health service use in a public hospital in Queensland for women who gave birth between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015 and their babies. Generalised linear models were used to compare costs over the first 1000 days between hospital and health services.Results. The mean unadjusted cost for each woman and her baby (n = 134 910) was A$17406 in the first 1000 days. After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors and birth type, women and their babies who birthed in the Cairns Hospital and Health Service (HHS) had costs 19% lower than those who birthed in Gold Coast HHS (95% confidence interval (CI) -32%, -4%); women and their babies who birthed at the Mater public hospitals had costs 28% higher than those who birthed at Gold Coast HHS (95% CI 8, 51).Conclusions. There was considerable variation in costs between hospital and health services in Queensland for the costs of delivering maternity care. Cost needs to be considered as an important additional element of monitoring programs.What is known about the topic? The Australian maternal care system delivers high-quality, safe care to Australian mothers. However, this comes at a considerable financial cost to the Australian public health system. It is known that there are variations in the cost of care depending upon the model of care a woman receives, and the type of delivery she has, with higher-cost treatment not necessarily being safer or producing better outcomes. What does this paper add? This paper compares the cost of delivering a full cycle of maternity care to a woman at different HHSs across Queensland. It demonstrates that there is considerable variation in cost across HHSs, even after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. What are the implications for practitioners? Reporting of cost should be an ongoing part of performance monitoring in public hospital maternity care alongside clinical outcomes to ensure the sustainability of the high-quality maternal health care Australian public hospitals deliver.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.