Health Systems and Sustainability: Doctors and Consumers Differ on Threats and Solutions

Background: Healthcare systems face the problem of insufficient resources to meet the needs of ageing populations and increasing demands for access to new treatments. It is unclear whether doctors and consumers agree on the main challenges to health system sustainability. Methodology: We conducted a mail survey of Australian doctors (specialists and general practitioners) and a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) of consumers to determine their views on contributors to increasing health care costs, rationing of services and involvement in health resource allocation decisions. Differences in responses are reported as odds ratios (OR) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 2948 doctors, 1139 (38.6%) responded; 533 of 826 consumers responded (64.5% response). Doctors were more concerned than consumers with the effects of an ageing population (OR 3.0; 99% CI 1.7, 5.4), and costs of new drugs and technologies (OR 5.1; CI 3.3, 8.0), but less likely to consider pharmaceutical promotional activities as a cost driver (OR 0.29, CI 0.22, 0.39). Doctors were more likely than consumers to view ‘community demand’ for new technologies as a major cost driver, (OR 1.6; 1.2, 2.2), but less likely to attribute increased costs to patients failing to take responsibility for their own health (OR 0.35; 0.24, 0.49). Like doctors, the majority of consumers saw a need for public consultation in decisions about funding for new treatments. Conclusions: Australian doctors and consumers hold different views on the sustainability of the healthcare system, and a number of key issues relating to costs, cost drivers, roles and responsibilities. Doctors recognise their dual responsibility to patients and society, see an important role for physicians in influencing resource allocation, and acknowledge their lack of skills in assessing treatments of marginal value. Consumers recognise cost pressures on the health system, but express willingness to be involved in health care decision making

Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates

To test the effect of a $AU 2 scratch lottery ticket on response rates to a national mailed questionnaire of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists.A randomized controlled trial was conducted and the incentive sent to half of the participants with the first mailing. A single follow-up mailing without incentive was sent to all non-respondents. Survey respondents were then informed of the research question regarding incentives and allowed to withdraw their study data. Differences in response rates between doctors receiving and not receiving the incentive, and between respondents and non-respondents, were examined.The overall response rate was 47% (443 respondents). Twenty-two respondents (5%) withdrew their data after being informed of the research question. Of the remaining 421 respondents, 233 had received the incentive (response rate 49.7%) and 188 had not (40.1%, p = 0.0032). The absolute increase in response rate with the incentive (9.6%, 95%CI 3.2, 15.9) was quantitatively similar in effect to the reminder mailing (11.8%). The incentive had a larger effect among the GP sample compared with specialists (13.4 vs. 5.9%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.20). There were no systematic differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and non-respondents.Increased response rates associated with a small incentive may reduce the need for a second mailed reminder, but strong views about the use of incentives may negatively influence the participation of some practitioners. While the overall response rate was low, there was no evidence of bias in our sample

Costs of medicines and health care: a concern for Australian women across the ages

Background: Evidence from Australia and other countries suggests that some individuals struggle to meet the costs of their health care, including medicines, despite the presence of Government subsidies for low-income earners. The aim of our study was to elucidate women’s experiences with the day to day expenses that relate to medicines and their health care. Methods: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH) conducts regular surveys of women in three age cohorts (born 1973–78, 1946–51, and 1921–26). Our data were obtained from free text comments included in surveys 1 to 5 for each cohort. All comments were scanned for mentions of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours around the costs of medicines and health care. Relevant comments were coded by category and themes identified. Results: Over 150,000 responses were received to the surveys, and 42,305 (27%) of these responses included free-text comments; 379 were relevant to medicines and health care costs (from 319 individuals). Three broad themes were identified: costs of medicines (33% of relevant comments), doctor visits (49%), and complementary medicines (13%). Age-specific issues with medicine costs included contraceptive medicines (1973–78 cohort), hormone replacement therapy (1946–51 cohort) and osteoporosis medications (1921–26 cohort). Concerns about doctor visits mostly related to reduced (or no) access to bulk-billed medical services, where there are no out-of pocket costs to the patient, and costs of specialist services. Some women in the 1973–78 and 1946–51 cohorts reported ‘too much income’ to qualify for government health benefits, but not enough to pay for visits to the doctor. In some cases, care and medicines were avoided because of the costs. Personal feelings of embarrassment over financial positions and judgments about bulk-billing practices (‘good ones don’t bulk-bill’) were barriers to service use, as were travel expenses for rural women. Conclusions: For some individuals, difficulty in accessing bulk-billing services and increasing out-of-pocket costs in Australia limit affordability of health services, including medications. At greatest risk may be those falling below thresholds for subsidised care such as self-funded retirees and those on low-middle incomes, in addition to those on very low incomes, who may find even small co-payments difficult to manage

Health Care Spending: Changes in the Perceptions of the Australian Public.

BACKGROUND:Increasing demand for services and rising health care costs create pressures within the Australian health care system and result in higher health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for consumers. OBJECTIVE:To measure changes in consumer views on the quality of the Australian health care system, contributors to rising costs and attitudes towards managing these costs. METHODS:Two computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted in 2006 (533 respondents) and 2015 (1318 respondents) and results compared. RESULTS:More respondents in 2015 rated the Australian health care system 'very adequate' than in 2006 (22.3% vs 8.3%; Odds Ratio OR 3.2, 99% CI 2.1, 5.1) with fewer 'concerned' or 'fairly concerned' about the health care costs (69.0% vs 85.7%; OR 0.37, 99% CI 0.25, 0.53). The 2015 respondents were more likely to identify new treatments for cancer (77% vs 65.7%; OR 1.75, 99% CI 1.30, 2.35) and community expectations for access to the latest technologies (73.8% vs 67%; OR 1.39, 99% CI 1.04, 1.86) as contributors to rising health care costs. While more 2015 respondents agreed that patients should pay a greater part of the health care costs, this remained a minority view (37.9% vs 31.7%; OR 1.32, 99% CI 0.99, 1.76). They were less likely to agree that doctors should offer medical treatments regardless of the cost and chance of benefit (63.6% vs 82.9%; OR 0.36, 99% CI 0.25, 0.50). CONCLUSIONS:Satisfaction with the Australian health care system has increased over time. Consumers recognise the cost pressures and have lower expectations that all services should be provided regardless of their costs and potential benefit. Public consultation on the allocation of health care resources and involvement in health care decision-making remains important. There should be community consultation about the principles and values that should guide resource allocation decisions

Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia

Background: Previous analyses of the listings of trastuzumab on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and HPV vaccine on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) suggest a media influence on policy makers. We examined the timing and content of Australian newspaper reports of medicines in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions. Methods: We identified newspaper reports (2005-2008) of medicines recommended for PBS listing in 2006-2007, analysing the content for mentions of the medicine, PBS and medicine costs to the patient and the government and counting the numbers of articles published in the six months before, the month of, and the six months after the relevant PBAC meeting. Case studies examined reporting for infliximab for Crohn's Disease, pemetrexed for mesothelioma, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) medicines atomoxetine and methylphenidate. Results: Of 79 eligible medicines, 62 had news reports. Most often reported were HPV vaccine (1230 stories), trastuzumab (410), pemetrexed (83), botulinum toxin (71), lapatinib (65), methylphenidate (57), atomoxetine (54), infliximab (49), rotavirus vaccine (45). Eighteen medicines had >= 20 news reports (total 2350 stories); nine of these cost more than AU$10,000 per course or year of treatment. For these 18 medicines, 31% of stories appeared in the six months prior to the PBAC meeting, 14% in the meeting month and 33% in the six months post-meeting. 38% of the stories had >= 3 medicine mentions, 37% referred to the PBS, 24% to cost to the patient, and 9% cost to Government. There was active patient lobby group campaigning in support of listing of infliximab and pemetrexed; the stories for ADHD were often more negative, referring to the dangers of the medicines and sometimes questioning the appropriateness of treatment and public subsidy. There was little discussion of the PBAC's evidence-based decision-making processes. Conclusions: While there was no general trend to increased news reporting associated with PBAC meetings, some drugs did attract media attention. With more new and expensive drugs, decisions on public funding will become increasingly difficult. The media have an important role in enhancing public understanding of the issues around resource allocation. Specialist journalists, guidelines and checklists may help reporting

Attitudes towards health care costs and rationing - Specialists versus GPs.

<p>*GPs are the reference category.</p

Moderate or major contributors to increasing health care costs - Specialists versus GPs.

<p>*GPs are the reference category.</p

Attitudes towards health care costs.

<p>Attitudes towards health care costs.</p

Consumer responses with and without recent hospitalization.

<p>Consumer responses with and without recent hospitalization.</p

Moderate or major contributors to increasing health care costs - Doctors (specialists and GPs combined) versus consumers.

<p>*Consumers are the reference category.</p