Dataset Information

Qualitative evaluation of a mandatory health insurance 'wait period' in a publicly funded health system: understanding health inequities for newcomer im/migrant women.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate impacts of a residency-based waiting period for health insurance coverage on lived experiences of health and settlement for im/migrant women in British Columbia, Canada.

Design

The IRIS study is a mixed-methods, community-based, qualitative evaluation of recently arrived im/migrant women's access to sexual and reproductive care. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted by trained multilingual and multicultural interviewers with lived migration experience in the participant's preferred language.

Setting

Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from July 2018 to January 2020.

Participants

Data collected from community focus groups (four groups, n=29) of both service providers and im/migrant women was used. Following this, qualitative interviews with service providers (n=10) and im/migrant women (n=47) were conducted. Eligible participants self-identified as women; were aged 18-49 and had arrived in Canada from another country. Eligible providers were employed in the health, social or legal sectors working with im/migrant women.

Results

The wait period resulted in mistrust and internalised stigma for racialised im/migrant women, for whom the policy resulted in feeling 'undeserving' of care. Resulting administrative burden produced delays and unmet need for care, particularly related to sexual and reproductive healthcare and children's health. Unexpected costs meant difficult choices between survival and care. Negative health outcomes included the inability to family plan, difficulties during pregnancy, as well as hardships related not being able to seek help for sick children. Community-based organisations provided support in many areas but could not fill all gaps produced by this policy.

Conclusions

Findings highlight severe, yet commonly overlooked, health inequities produced by a mandatory health coverage wait period within a purportedly 'universal' healthcare system. Health system policies such as mandatory 'waiting periods' produce discriminatory and inequitable outcomes for im/migrant women. Policy reforms towards full 'healthcare for all' are urgently needed to affirm the health and human rights of all im/migrants.

SUBMITTER: Hamel-Smith Grassby M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8344307 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. METHODS:The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey's health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. RESULTS:Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. CONCLUSION:PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either 'Trusts' or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

Project description:BackgroundThe continuing impetus for universal health coverage has given rise to publicly funded health insurance schemes in lower-middle income countries. However, there is insufficient understanding of how universal health coverage schemes impact gender equality and equity. This paper attempts to understand why utilization of a publicly funded health insurance scheme has been found to be lower among women compared to men in a southern Indian state. It aims to identify the gender barriers across various social institutions that thwart the policy objectives of providing financial protection and improved access to inpatient care for women.MethodsA qualitative study on the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme was carried out in urban and rural impoverished localities in Tamil Nadu, a southern state in India. Thirty-three women and 16 men who had a recent history of hospitalization and 14 stakeholders were purposefully interviewed. Transcribed interviews were content analyzed based on Naila Kabeer's Social Relations Framework using gender as an analytical category.ResultsWhile unpacking the navigation pathways of women to utilize publicly funded health insurance to access inpatient care, gender barriers are found operating at the household, community, and programmatic levels. Unpaid care work, financial dependence, mobility constraints, and gender norms emerged as the major gender-specific barriers arising from the household. Exclusions from insurance enrollment activities at the community level were mediated by a variety of social inequities. Market ideologies in insurance and health, combined with poor governance by State, resulted in out-of-pocket health expenditures, acute information asymmetry, selective availability of care, and poor acceptability. These gender barriers were found to be mediated by all four institutions-household, community, market, and State-resulting in lower utilization of the scheme by women.ConclusionsHealth policies which aim to provide financial protection and improve access to healthcare services need to address gender as a crucial social determinant. A gender-blind health insurance can not only leave many pre-existing gender barriers unaddressed but also accentuate others. This paper stresses that universal health coverage policy and programs need to have an explicit focus on gender and other social determinants to promote access and equity.

Project description:BackgroundPublicly Funded Health Insurance Schemes (PFHIS) are intended to play a role in achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). In countries like India, PFHISs have low penetrance and provide limited coverage of services and of family members within households, which can mean that women lose out. Gender inequities in relation to financial risk protection are understudied. Given the emphasis being placed on achieving UHC for all in India, this paper examined intersecting gender inequalities and changes in PFHIS coverage in southern India, where its penetrance is greater and of longer duration.Data and methodsThis study used the fourth (NFHS-4, 2015-16) and fifth (NFHS-5, 2019-21) rounds of India's National Family Health Survey for five southern states: namely, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. The World Health Organization's Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) Plus and Stata were used to analyse PFHIS coverage disaggregated by seven dimensions of inequality. Ratios and differences for binary dimensions; Between Group Variance and Theil Index for unordered dimensions; Absolute and Relative Concentration Index (RCI) for ordered dimensions were computed separately for women and men.ResultsOverall, PFHIS coverage increased significantly (p < 0.001) among women and men in Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala from NFHS-4 to NFHS-5. Overall, men had higher PFHIS coverage than women, especially in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana in both surveys. In both absolute and relative terms, PFHIS coverage was concentrated among older women and men across all states; age-related inequalities were higher among women than men in both surveys in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Telengana. The magnitude of education-related inequalities was twice as high as among women in Telangana (RCINFHS-4: -12.23; RCINFHS-5: -9.98) and Andhra Pradesh (RCINFHS-4: -8.05; RCINFHS-5: -7.84) as compared to men in Telangana (RCINFHS-4: -5.58; RCINFHS-5: -2.30) and Andhra Pradesh (RCINFHS-4: -4.40; RCINFHS-5: -3.12) and these inequalities remained in NFHS-5, suggesting that lower education level women had greater coverage. In the latter survey, a high magnitude of wealth-related inequality was observed in women (RCINFHS-4: -15.78; RCINFHS-5: -14.36) and men (RCINFHS-4: -20.42; RCINFHS-5: -13.84) belonging to Kerala, whereas this inequality has decreased from NFHS-4 to NFHS-5., again suggestive of greater coverage among poorer populations. Caste-related inequalities were higher in women than men in both surveys, the magnitude of inequalities decreased between 2015-16 and 2019-20.ConclusionsWe found gender inequalities in self-reported enrolment in southern states with long-standing PFHIS. Inequalities favoured the poor, uneducated and elderly, which is to some extend desirable when rolling out a PFHIS intended for harder to reach populations. However, religion and caste-based inequalities, while reducing, were still prevalent among women. If PFHIS are to truly offer financial risk protection, they must address the intersecting marginalization faced by women and men, while meeting eventual goals of risk pooling, indicated by high coverage and low inequality across population sub-groups.

Project description:BackgroundThe Health and Health Services Research Fund (HHSRF) is dedicated to support research related to all aspects of health and health services in Hong Kong. We evaluated the fund's outcomes and explored factors associated with the translation of research findings to changes in health policy and provider behaviour.MethodsA locally suitable questionnaire was developed based on the "payback" evaluation framework and was sent to principal investigators of the completed research projects supported by the fund since 1993. Research "payback" in six outcome areas was surveyed, namely knowledge production, use of research in the research system, use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making, application of the research findings through changed behaviour, factors influencing the utilization of research, and health/health service/economic benefits.ResultsPrincipal investigators of 178 of 205 (87%) completed research projects returned the questionnaire. Investigators reported research publications in 86.5% (mean = 5.4 publications per project), career advancement 34.3%, acquisition of higher qualifications 38.2%, use of results in policy making 35.4%, changed behaviour in light of findings 49.4%, evidence of health service benefit 42.1% and generated subsequent research in 44.9% of the projects. Payback outcomes were positively associated with the amount of funding awarded. Multivariate analysis found participation of investigators in policy committees and liaison with potential users were significantly associated with reported health service benefit (odds ratio [OR]participation = 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-6.40; ORliaison = 2.03, 95% CI 1.05-3.91), policy and decision-making (ORparticipation = 10.53, 95% CI 4.13-26.81; ORliaison = 2.52, 95% CI 1.20-5.28), and change in behavior (ORparticipation = 3.67, 95% CI 1.53-8.81).ConclusionThe HHSRF has produced substantial outcomes and compared favourably with similar health research funds in other developed economies. Further studies are needed to better understand the factors and pathways associated with the translation of research findings into practice.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little systematic assessment of how total health expenditure is distributed across diseases and comorbidities. The objective of this study was to use statistical methods to disaggregate all publicly funded health expenditure by disease and comorbidities in order to answer three research questions: (1) What is health expenditure by disease phase for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in New Zealand? (2) Is the cost of having two NCDs more or less than that expected given the independent costs of each NCD? (3) How is total health spending disaggregated by NCDs across age and by sex?Methods and findingsWe used linked data for all adult New Zealanders for publicly funded events, including hospitalisation, outpatient, pharmaceutical, laboratory testing, and primary care from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2014. These data include 18.9 million person-years and $26.4 billion in spending (US$ 2016). We used case definition algorithms to identify if a person had any of six NCDs (cancer, cardiovascular disease [CVD], diabetes, musculoskeletal, neurological, and a chronic lung/liver/kidney [LLK] disease). Indicator variables were used to identify the presence of any of the 15 possible comorbidity pairings of these six NCDs. Regression was used to estimate excess annual health expenditure per person. Cause deletion methods were used to estimate total population expenditure by disease. A majority (59%) of health expenditure was attributable to NCDs. Expenditure due to diseases was generally highest in the year of diagnosis and year of death. A person having two diseases simultaneously generally had greater health expenditure than the expected sum of having the diseases separately, for all 15 comorbidity pairs except the CVD-cancer pair. For example, a 60-64-year-old female with none of the six NCDs had $633 per annum expenditure. If she had both CVD and chronic LLK, additional expenditure for CVD separately was $6,443/$839/$9,225 for the first year of diagnosis/prevalent years/last year of life if dying of CVD; additional expenditure for chronic LLK separately was $6,443/$1,291/$9,051; and the additional comorbidity expenditure of having both CVD and LLK was $2,456 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,238-$2,674). The pattern was similar for males (e.g., additional comorbidity expenditure for a 60-64-year-old male with CVD and chronic LLK was $2,498 [95% CI $2,264-$2,632]). In addition to this, the excess comorbidity costs for a person with two diseases was greater at younger ages, e.g., excess expenditure for 45-49-year-old males with CVD and chronic LLK was 10 times higher than for 75-79-year-old males and six times higher for females. At the population level, 23.8% of total health expenditure was attributable to higher costs of having one of the 15 comorbidity pairs over and above the six NCDs separately; of the remaining expenditure, CVD accounted for 18.7%, followed by musculoskeletal (16.2%), neurological (14.4%), cancer (14.1%), chronic LLK disease (7.4%), and diabetes (5.5%). Major limitations included incomplete linkage to all costed events (although these were largely non-NCD events) and missing private expenditure.ConclusionsThe costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive, and more so for younger adults. Neurological and musculoskeletal diseases contributed the largest health system costs, in accord with burden of disease studies finding that they contribute large morbidity. Just as burden of disease methodology has advanced the understanding of disease burden, there is a need to create disease-based costing studies that facilitate the disaggregation of health budgets at a national level.