1 / 10

Impact of reduced copayments on GP access for injuries

Impact of reduced copayments on GP access for injuries. Presentation to 5 th Health Services & Policy Research Conference. Jean-Pierre de Raad & John Stephenson, NZIER December 2007. Evaluation objectives. To what extent would an increase in ACC’s subsidy to general practitioners lead to:

viola
Download Presentation

Impact of reduced copayments on GP access for injuries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of reduced copayments on GP access for injuries Presentation to 5th Health Services & Policy Research Conference Jean-Pierre de Raad & John Stephenson, NZIER December 2007

  2. Evaluation objectives • To what extent would an increase in ACC’s subsidy to general practitioners lead to: • reduced copayments for claimants, and thus… • an increase in utilisation, particularly by Māori, Pacific people, and people with low socioeconomic status.

  3. Intervention • Increase in subsidies to providers in pilot sites for 1 year • Whangarei, Rotorua, Wanganui, Wellington, Nelson, Dunedin • Letter with expectation that subsidies be passed on • Minimal awareness-raising

  4. Methods • Compare impact vs rest of NZ • Copayment surveys 2004-06 • Focus groups with participating GPs • Public awareness surveys • Time-series and panel-data analyses of ACC claims (1.4m observations per annum x 4 years)

  5. Evidence from copayment surveys Dollars per visit • No evidence that extra $6 reduced copayments • Pilot sites: $7.50 of extra $10 passed on (+/- $2.50) • Copayments down 41% • Analysis by PHO-type inconclusive 2004 2005

  6. Utilisation – evidence from GP focus groups • not necessarily more patients, but patients come back more • not aware of more utilisation by target groups • extra money and repeat visits allows better service and better outcomes

  7. Utilisation – time series results

  8. Utilisation – panel data results

  9. Pilot sites Non-pilot sites $GP $Other $ GP $Other Substitution effects • GP-initiated claims up 4.5%, but claims initiated at other treatment providers down: net effect on claims +1.4%? • Similar story looking at costs (below) or conditional probabilities of use of different providers

  10. Conclusions & policy relevance • User charges reduced, and utilisation up a bit: • Claims up, fewer visits per claim • Inelastic demand (0.1 is low cf international literature) • Mixed evidence on target group impact • Extra visits for less serious injuries, i.e. lower benefits • Income transfers dominate • Focus groups find opposite on utilisation • Not instrument of choice to address ‘unmet need’

More Related