Dataset Information

Effect of multimorbidity on utilisation and out-of-pocket expenditure in Indonesia: quantile regression analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more non-communicable diseases) is a major growing challenge for many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Yet, its effects on health care costs and financial burden for patients have not been adequately studied. This study investigates the effect of multimorbidity across the different percentiles of healthcare utilisation and out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE).

Methods

We conducted a secondary data analysis of the 2014/2015 Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS-5), which included 13,798 respondents aged ≥40 years. Poisson regression was used to assess the association between sociodemographic characteristics and the total number of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), while multivariate logistic regression and quantile regression analysis was used to estimate the associations between multimorbidity, health service use and OOPE.

Results

Overall, 20.8% of total participants had two or more NCDs in 2014/2015. The number of NCDs was associated with higher healthcare utilisation (coefficient 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.14 for outpatient care and coefficient 0.09 (95% CI 0.02-0.16 for inpatient care) and higher four-weekly OOPE (coefficient 27.0, 95% CI 11.4-42.7). The quantile regression results indicated that the marginal effect of having three or more NCDs on the absolute amount of four-weekly OOPE was smaller for the lower percentiles (at the 25th percentile, coefficient 1.0, 95% CI 0.5-1.5) but more pronounced for the higher percentile of out-of-pocket spending distribution (at the 90th percentile, coefficient 31.0, 95% CI 15.9-46.2).

Conclusion

Multimorbidity is positively correlated with health service utilisation and OOPE and has a significant effect, especially among those in the upper tail of the utilisation/costs distribution. Health financing strategies are urgently required to meet the needs of patients with multimorbidity, particularly for vulnerable groups that have a higher level of health care utilisation.

SUBMITTER: Anindya K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8097787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe burden of non-communicable disease (NCDs) has grown rapidly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where populations are ageing, with rising prevalence of multimorbidity (more than two co-existing chronic conditions) that will significantly increase pressure on already stretched health systems. We assess the impact of NCD multimorbidity on healthcare utilisation and out-of-pocket expenditures in six middle-income countries: China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.MethodsSecondary analyses of cross-sectional data from adult participants (>18 years) in the WHO Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) 2007-2010. We used multiple logistic regression to determine socio-demographic correlates of multimorbidity. Association between the number of NCDs and healthcare utilisation as well as out-of-pocket spending was assessed using logistic, negative binominal and log-linear models.ResultsThe prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population varied from 3.9% in Ghana to 33.6% in Russia. Number of visits to doctors in primary and secondary care rose substantially for persons with increasing numbers of co-existing NCDs. Multimorbidity was associated with more outpatient visits in China (coefficient for number of NCD = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.66), a higher likelihood of being hospitalised in India (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.45, 1.75), higher out-of-pocket expenditures for outpatient visits in India and China, and higher expenditures for hospital visits in Russia. Medicines constituted the largest proportion of out-of-pocket expenditures in persons with multimorbidity (88.3% for outpatient, 55.9% for inpatient visit in China) in most countries.ConclusionMultimorbidity is associated with higher levels of healthcare utilisation and greater financial burden for individuals in middle-income countries. Our study supports the WHO call for universal health insurance and health service coverage in LMICs, particularly for vulnerable groups such as the elderly with multimorbidity.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Back pain impacts on a significant proportion of the Australian population over the life course and has high prevalence rates among women, particularly in older age. Back pain care is characterised by multiple practitioner and self-prescribed treatment options, and the out-of-pocket costs associated with consultations and self-prescribed treatments have not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the extent of health care practitioner consultations and self-prescribed treatment for back pain care among Australian women, and to assess the self-reported costs associated with such usage. METHODS: Survey of 1,310 women (response rate 80.9%) who reported seeking help for back pain from the '1946-51 cohort' of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women were asked about their use of health care practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain and the costs associated with such usage. RESULTS: In the past year 76.4% consulted a complementary and alternative practitioner, 56% an allied health practitioner and 59.2% a GP/medical specialist. Overall, women consulted with, on average, 3.0 (SD = 2.0) different health care practitioners, and had, on average, 12.2 (SD = 9.7) discrete health care practitioner consultations for back pain. Average self-reported out-of-pocket expenditure on practitioners and self-prescribed treatments for back pain care per annum was AU$873.10. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple provider usage for various but distinct purposes (i.e. pain/mobility versus anxiety/stress) points to the need for further research into patient motivations and experiences of back pain care in order to improve and enhance access to and continuity of care. Our results suggest that the cost of back pain care represents a significant burden, and may ultimately limit women's access to multiple providers. We extrapolate that for Australian working-age women, total out-of-pocket expenditure on back pain care per annum is in excess of AU$1.4 billion, thus indicating the prominence of back pain as a major economic, social and health burden.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Because of the rapid increase of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and high burden of healthcare-related financial issues in Bangladesh, there is a concern that out-of-pocket (OOP) payments related to illnesses may become a major burden on household. It is crucial to understand what are the major illnesses responsible for high OPP at the household level to help policymakers prioritize key areas of actions to protect the household from 100% financial hardship for seeking health care as part of universal health coverage. OBJECTIVES:We first estimated the costs of illnesses among a population in urban Bangladesh, and then assessed the household financial burden associated with these illnesses. METHOD:A cross-sectional survey of 1593 randomly selected households was carried out in Bangladesh (urban area of Rajshahi city), in 2011. Catastrophic expenditure was estimated at 40% threshold of household capacity to pay. We employed the Bayesian two-stage hurdle model and Bayesian logistic regression model to estimate age-adjusted average cost and the incidence of household financial catastrophe for each illness, respectively. RESULTS:Overall, approximately 45% of the population of Bangladesh had at least one episode of illness. The age-sex-adjusted average medical expenses and catastrophic health care expenditure among the households were TK 621 and 8%, respectively. Households spent the highest amount of money 7676.9 on paralysis followed by liver disease (TK 2695.4), injury (TK 2440.0), mental disease (TK 2258.0), and tumor (TK 2231.2). These diseases were also responsible for higher incidence of financial catastrophe. Our study showed that 24% of individuals who suffered typhoid incurred catastrophic expenditure followed by liver disease (12.3%), tumor (12.1%), heart disease (8.4%), injury (7.9%), mental disease (7.9%), cataract (7.1%), and paralysis (6.5%). CONCLUSION:The study findings suggest that chronic illnesses were responsible for high costs and high catastrophic expenditures in Bangladesh. Effective risk pooling mechanism might reduce household financial burden related to illnesses. Chronic illness related to NCDs is the major cause of OOP. It is also important to consider prioritizing vulnerable population by subsidizing the high health care cost for some of the chronic illnesses.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of number of health items on out-of-pockets (OOPs) has been identified as a source of bias in measuring OOPs. Evidence comes mostly from cross-sectional comparison of different survey instruments to collect data on OOPs. Very few studies have attempted to validate these questionnaires, or distinguish bias arising from the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list versus specificity of OOPs questions.ObjectivesThis study aims to estimate biases arising from the specificity of OOPs questions by comparing provider and household's information.MethodsA generic questionnaire to collect data on household's OOPs was developed following the nomenclature proposed in division 6 of the classification of household final consumption 2018. The four categories within such division are used to set the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list, the specificity within each category was tailored to the design of the nationally representative living standard survey in Ghana where a field experiment was conducted to test the validity of different versions. Households were randomised to 11, 44 or 56 health items. Using data from provider records as the gold standard, we compared the mean positive OOPs, and estimated the mean ratio and variability in the ratio of household expenditures to provider data for the individual households using the Bland-Altman method of assessing agreement.FindingsWe found evidence of a difference in the overall mean ratio in the specificity for OOPs in inpatient care and medications. Within each of these two categories, a more detailed disaggregation yielded lower OOPs estimates than less detailed ones. The level of agreement between household and provider OOPs also decreased with increasing specificity of health items.ConclusionOur findings suggest that, for inpatient care and medications, systematically decomposing OOPs categories into finer subclasses tend to produce lower OOPs estimates. Less detailed items produced more accurate and reliable OOPs estimates in the context of a rural setting.

Project description:Out-of-pocket payments (OOPs), direct payments by households or individuals for healthcare are part of the health financing landscape. Data on OOPs is needed to monitor progress in financial risk protection, and the evaluation of health financing policies. In low-and-middle-income countries, estimates of OOPs rely heavily on self-reported data from household surveys. These surveys require respondents to recall events in the past and can suffer from recall biases. This study investigates the effect of recall period on the agreement of the amount and timing of inpatient OOPs between household reports and provider records in Bavi, Vietnam. We recruited 1397 households for interview using records from the district hospital. The households were interviewed with identical questionnaires except that the recall period was either 12 or 6 months. We linked household with provider data and excluded medicine costs from both household and provider OOPs since they could be purchased outside the hospital. We estimated the effect of recall period on the overall mean and variability of ratios of household to hospital reported OOPs using the Bland-Altman approach for method comparison. We estimated the effect of recall period on whether a transaction was recalled correctly in expenditure and time using multinomial regression. The households reported higher amounts of OOPs than did the hospital for both recall periods. There was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the mean of the ratios of household- to hospital-reported OOPs, although the confidence intervals are not inconsistent with previous studies indicating higher OOPs for shorter recall periods. The geometric mean ratio for the 6-month period was estimated to be a multiple of 1.4 (95% CI 0.9, 2.1) times that of the 12-month period. Similarly, there was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the risk of reporting lower or higher amounts than provider OOPs. The occurrence and timing of inpatient stays generally recalled well, with 70% remembered in the correct month declining slightly over time. Respondents for the 6-month recall period had a significantly lower risk of failing to report the event (RR 0.8 (0.7, 1.0)). The results suggest the best recall period may depend on whether the purpose of a survey is for the recall of the timing of events, in which case the 6 month period may be better, or the amounts of OOPs, where there was no significant difference and the provider records are not a gold standard but the 12 month period had a tendency to be in closer agreement with the provider OOPs.