Assessing socioeconomic health care utilization inequity in Israel: Impact of alternative approaches to morbidity adjustment

Efrat Shadmi, Ran D. Balicer, Karen Kinder, Chad Abrams, Jonathan Weiner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The ability to accurately detect differential resource use between persons of different socioeconomic status relies on the accuracy of health-needs adjustment measures. This study tests different approaches to morbidity adjustment in explanation of health care utilization inequity. Methods. A representative sample was selected of 10 percent (∼270,000) adult enrolees of Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health care organization. The Johns-Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups were used to assess each person's overall morbidity burden based on one year's (2009) diagnostic information. The odds of above average health care resource use (primary care visits, specialty visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations) were tested using multivariate logistic regression models, separately adjusting for levels of health-need using data on age and gender, comorbidity (using the Charlson Comorbidity Index), or morbidity burden (using the Adjusted Clinical Groups). Model fit was assessed using tests of the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve and the Akaike Information Criteria. Results: Low socioeconomic status was associated with higher morbidity burden (1.5-fold difference). Adjusting for health needs using age and gender or the Charlson index, persons of low socioeconomic status had greater odds of above average resource use for all types of services examined (primary care and specialist visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations). In contrast, after adjustment for overall morbidity burden (using Adjusted Clinical Groups), low socioeconomic status was no longer associated with greater odds of specialty care or diagnostic tests (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.94-0.99; and OR: 0.91, CI: 0.86-0.96, for specialty visits and diagnostic respectively). Tests of model fit showed that adjustment using the comprehensive morbidity burden measure provided a better fit than age and gender or the Charlson Index. Conclusions: Identification of socioeconomic differences in health care utilization is an important step in disparity reduction efforts. Adjustment for health-needs using a comprehensive morbidity burden diagnoses-based measure, this study showed relative underutilization in use of specialist and diagnostic services, and thus allowed for identification of inequity in health resources use, which could not be detected with less comprehensive forms of health-needs adjustments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number609
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Israel
Morbidity
Social Class
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Health Resources
Health
Comorbidity
Primary Health Care
Hospitalization
Logistic Models
Diagnostic Services
Delivery of Health Care
ROC Curve
Health Status
Health Services
Organizations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Assessing socioeconomic health care utilization inequity in Israel : Impact of alternative approaches to morbidity adjustment. / Shadmi, Efrat; Balicer, Ran D.; Kinder, Karen; Abrams, Chad; Weiner, Jonathan.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 11, 609, 2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{411002cc1b6a4f169610554f309a5982,
title = "Assessing socioeconomic health care utilization inequity in Israel: Impact of alternative approaches to morbidity adjustment",
abstract = "Background: The ability to accurately detect differential resource use between persons of different socioeconomic status relies on the accuracy of health-needs adjustment measures. This study tests different approaches to morbidity adjustment in explanation of health care utilization inequity. Methods. A representative sample was selected of 10 percent (∼270,000) adult enrolees of Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health care organization. The Johns-Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups were used to assess each person's overall morbidity burden based on one year's (2009) diagnostic information. The odds of above average health care resource use (primary care visits, specialty visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations) were tested using multivariate logistic regression models, separately adjusting for levels of health-need using data on age and gender, comorbidity (using the Charlson Comorbidity Index), or morbidity burden (using the Adjusted Clinical Groups). Model fit was assessed using tests of the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve and the Akaike Information Criteria. Results: Low socioeconomic status was associated with higher morbidity burden (1.5-fold difference). Adjusting for health needs using age and gender or the Charlson index, persons of low socioeconomic status had greater odds of above average resource use for all types of services examined (primary care and specialist visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations). In contrast, after adjustment for overall morbidity burden (using Adjusted Clinical Groups), low socioeconomic status was no longer associated with greater odds of specialty care or diagnostic tests (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.94-0.99; and OR: 0.91, CI: 0.86-0.96, for specialty visits and diagnostic respectively). Tests of model fit showed that adjustment using the comprehensive morbidity burden measure provided a better fit than age and gender or the Charlson Index. Conclusions: Identification of socioeconomic differences in health care utilization is an important step in disparity reduction efforts. Adjustment for health-needs using a comprehensive morbidity burden diagnoses-based measure, this study showed relative underutilization in use of specialist and diagnostic services, and thus allowed for identification of inequity in health resources use, which could not be detected with less comprehensive forms of health-needs adjustments.",
author = "Efrat Shadmi and Balicer, {Ran D.} and Karen Kinder and Chad Abrams and Jonathan Weiner",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2458-11-609",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing socioeconomic health care utilization inequity in Israel

T2 - Impact of alternative approaches to morbidity adjustment

AU - Shadmi, Efrat

AU - Balicer, Ran D.

AU - Kinder, Karen

AU - Abrams, Chad

AU - Weiner, Jonathan

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Background: The ability to accurately detect differential resource use between persons of different socioeconomic status relies on the accuracy of health-needs adjustment measures. This study tests different approaches to morbidity adjustment in explanation of health care utilization inequity. Methods. A representative sample was selected of 10 percent (∼270,000) adult enrolees of Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health care organization. The Johns-Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups were used to assess each person's overall morbidity burden based on one year's (2009) diagnostic information. The odds of above average health care resource use (primary care visits, specialty visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations) were tested using multivariate logistic regression models, separately adjusting for levels of health-need using data on age and gender, comorbidity (using the Charlson Comorbidity Index), or morbidity burden (using the Adjusted Clinical Groups). Model fit was assessed using tests of the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve and the Akaike Information Criteria. Results: Low socioeconomic status was associated with higher morbidity burden (1.5-fold difference). Adjusting for health needs using age and gender or the Charlson index, persons of low socioeconomic status had greater odds of above average resource use for all types of services examined (primary care and specialist visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations). In contrast, after adjustment for overall morbidity burden (using Adjusted Clinical Groups), low socioeconomic status was no longer associated with greater odds of specialty care or diagnostic tests (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.94-0.99; and OR: 0.91, CI: 0.86-0.96, for specialty visits and diagnostic respectively). Tests of model fit showed that adjustment using the comprehensive morbidity burden measure provided a better fit than age and gender or the Charlson Index. Conclusions: Identification of socioeconomic differences in health care utilization is an important step in disparity reduction efforts. Adjustment for health-needs using a comprehensive morbidity burden diagnoses-based measure, this study showed relative underutilization in use of specialist and diagnostic services, and thus allowed for identification of inequity in health resources use, which could not be detected with less comprehensive forms of health-needs adjustments.

AB - Background: The ability to accurately detect differential resource use between persons of different socioeconomic status relies on the accuracy of health-needs adjustment measures. This study tests different approaches to morbidity adjustment in explanation of health care utilization inequity. Methods. A representative sample was selected of 10 percent (∼270,000) adult enrolees of Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health care organization. The Johns-Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups were used to assess each person's overall morbidity burden based on one year's (2009) diagnostic information. The odds of above average health care resource use (primary care visits, specialty visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations) were tested using multivariate logistic regression models, separately adjusting for levels of health-need using data on age and gender, comorbidity (using the Charlson Comorbidity Index), or morbidity burden (using the Adjusted Clinical Groups). Model fit was assessed using tests of the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve and the Akaike Information Criteria. Results: Low socioeconomic status was associated with higher morbidity burden (1.5-fold difference). Adjusting for health needs using age and gender or the Charlson index, persons of low socioeconomic status had greater odds of above average resource use for all types of services examined (primary care and specialist visits, diagnostic tests, or hospitalizations). In contrast, after adjustment for overall morbidity burden (using Adjusted Clinical Groups), low socioeconomic status was no longer associated with greater odds of specialty care or diagnostic tests (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.94-0.99; and OR: 0.91, CI: 0.86-0.96, for specialty visits and diagnostic respectively). Tests of model fit showed that adjustment using the comprehensive morbidity burden measure provided a better fit than age and gender or the Charlson Index. Conclusions: Identification of socioeconomic differences in health care utilization is an important step in disparity reduction efforts. Adjustment for health-needs using a comprehensive morbidity burden diagnoses-based measure, this study showed relative underutilization in use of specialist and diagnostic services, and thus allowed for identification of inequity in health resources use, which could not be detected with less comprehensive forms of health-needs adjustments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960852619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960852619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-11-609

DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-11-609

M3 - Article

C2 - 21801459

AN - SCOPUS:79960852619

VL - 11

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 609

ER -