Dataset Information

Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Primary care provides the foundation for most modern health-care systems, and in the interests of equity, it should be resourced according to local need. We aimed to describe spatially the burden of chronic conditions and primary medical care funding in England at a low geographical level, and to measure how much variation in funding is explained by chronic condition prevalence and other patient and regional factors. METHODS:We used multiple administrative data sets including chronic condition prevalence and management data (2014/15), funding for primary-care practices (2015-16), and geographical and area deprivation data (2015). Data were assigned to a low geographical level (average 1500 residents). We investigated the overall morbidity burden across 19 chronic conditions and its regional variation, spatial clustering and association with funding and area deprivation. A linear regression model was used to explain local variation in spending using patient demographics, morbidity, deprivation and regional characteristics. RESULTS:Levels of morbidity varied within and between regions, with several clusters of very high morbidity identified. At the regional level, morbidity was modestly associated with practice funding, with the North East and North West appearing underfunded. The regression model explained 39% of the variability in practice funding, but even after adjusting for covariates, a large amount of variability in funding existed across regions. High morbidity and, especially, rural location were very strongly associated with higher practice funding, while associations were more modest for high deprivation and older age. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care funding in England does not adequately reflect the contemporary morbidity burden. More equitable resource allocation could be achieved by making better use of routinely available information and big data resources. Similar methods could be deployed in other countries where comparable data are collected, to identify morbidity clusters and to target funding to areas of greater need.

SUBMITTER: Kontopantelis E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5812046 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis.

Kontopantelis Evangelos E Mamas Mamas A MA van Marwijk Harm H Ryan Andrew M AM Bower Peter P Guthrie Bruce B Doran Tim T

BMC medicine 20180214 1

<h4>Background</h4>Primary care provides the foundation for most modern health-care systems, and in the interests of equity, it should be resourced according to local need. We aimed to describe spatially the burden of chronic conditions and primary medical care funding in England at a low geographical level, and to measure how much variation in funding is explained by chronic condition prevalence and other patient and regional factors.<h4>Methods</h4>We used multiple administrative data sets inc ...[more]

PMID: 29439705

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpioid overdoses have had a serious impact on the public health systems and socioeconomic welfare of several countries. Within this broader context, we focus our study on primary care opioid prescribing in England from 2015 to 2018, particularly the patterns of spatial variations at the community level and the socioeconomic and environmental factors that drive consumption.MethodsLeveraging open data sources, we combine prescription records with aggregated data on patient provenance and build highly granular maps of Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME) prescribing rates for Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA). We quantify the strength of spatial associations by means of the Empirical Bayes Index (EBI) that accounts for geographical variations in population density. We explore the interplay between socioeconomic and environmental determinants and prescribing rates by implementing a multivariate logistic regression model across different temporal snapshots and spatial scales.ResultsWe observe, across time and geographical resolutions, a significant spatial association with the presence of localized hot and cold spots that group neighboring areas with homogeneous prescribing rates (e.g., EBI = 0.727 at LSOA level for 2018). Accounting for spatial dependency effects, we find that LSOA with both higher employment deprivation (OR = 62.6, CI 52.8-74.3) and a higher percentage of ethnically white (OR = 30.1, CI 25.4-35.7) inhabitants correspond to higher prescribing rates. Looking at educational attainment, we find LSOA with the prevalent degree of education being apprenticeship (OR = 2.33, CI 1.96-2.76) a risk factor and those with level 4+ (OR = 0.41, CI 0.35-0.48) a protective factor. Focusing on environmental determinants, housing (OR = 0.18, CI 0.15-0.21) and outdoor environment deprivation (OR = 0.62, CI 0.53-0.72) indices capture the bi-modal behavior observed in the literature concerning rural/urban areas. The results are consistent across time and spatial aggregations.ConclusionsFailing to account for local variations in opioid prescribing rates smooths out spatial dependency effects that result in underestimating/overestimating the impact on public health policies at the community level. Our study suggests a novel approach to inform more targeted interventions toward the most vulnerable population strata.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Comparable estimates of health spending are crucial for the assessment of health systems and to optimally deploy health resources. The methods used to track health spending continue to evolve, but little is known about the distribution of spending across diseases. We developed improved estimates of health spending by source, including development assistance for health, and, for the first time, estimated HIV/AIDS spending on prevention and treatment and by source of funding, for 188 countries. METHODS:We collected published data on domestic health spending, from 1995 to 2015, from a diverse set of international agencies. We tracked development assistance for health from 1990 to 2017. We also extracted 5385 datapoints about HIV/AIDS spending, between 2000 and 2015, from online databases, country reports, and proposals submitted to multilateral organisations. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to generate complete and comparable estimates for health and HIV/AIDS spending. We report most estimates in 2017 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars and adjust all estimates for the effect of inflation. FINDINGS:Between 1995 and 2015, global health spending per capita grew at an annualised rate of 3·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1 to 3·2), with growth being largest in upper-middle-income countries (5·4% per capita [UI 5·3-5·5]) and lower-middle-income countries (4·2% per capita [4·2-4·3]). In 2015, $9·7 trillion (9·7 trillion to 9·8 trillion) was spent on health worldwide. High-income countries spent $6·5 trillion (6·4 trillion to 6·5 trillion) or 66·3% (66·0 to 66·5) of the total in 2015, whereas low-income countries spent $70·3 billion (69·3 billion to 71·3 billion) or 0·7% (0·7 to 0·7). Between 1990 and 2017, development assistance for health increased by 394·7% ($29·9 billion), with an estimated $37·4 billion of development assistance being disbursed for health in 2017, of which $9·1 billion (24·2%) targeted HIV/AIDS. Between 2000 and 2015, $562·6 billion (531·1 billion to 621·9 billion) was spent on HIV/AIDS worldwide. Governments financed 57·6% (52·0 to 60·8) of that total. Global HIV/AIDS spending peaked at 49·7 billion (46·2-54·7) in 2013, decreasing to $48·9 billion (45·2 billion to 54·2 billion) in 2015. That year, low-income and lower-middle-income countries represented 74·6% of all HIV/AIDS disability-adjusted life-years, but just 36·6% (34·4 to 38·7) of total HIV/AIDS spending. In 2015, $9·3 billion (8·5 billion to 10·4 billion) or 19·0% (17·6 to 20·6) of HIV/AIDS financing was spent on prevention, and $27·3 billion (24·5 billion to 31·1 billion) or 55·8% (53·3 to 57·9) was dedicated to care and treatment. INTERPRETATION:From 1995 to 2015, total health spending increased worldwide, with the fastest per capita growth in middle-income countries. While these national disparities are relatively well known, low-income countries spent less per person on health and HIV/AIDS than did high-income and middle-income countries. Furthermore, declines in development assistance for health continue, including for HIV/AIDS. Additional cuts to development assistance could hasten this decline, and risk slowing progress towards global and national goals. FUNDING:The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis.

Publications

Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets