Healthcare utilization and expenditures for chronic and acute conditions in Georgia: Does benefit package design matter?

BMC Health Services Research

Akaki Zoidze²  Natia Shengelia²  Adrianna Murphy¹  George Gotsadze² 

[1] London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK;Curatio International Foundation, 37 Chavchavadze Ave., Tbilisi, 0162, Georgia

关键词: Universal coverage;    Insurance;    Benefit design;    Non-communicable diseases;   

Others  :  1135511
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-015-0755-x

 received in 2014-05-22, accepted in 2015-02-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

In 2007 the Georgian government introduced a full state-subsidized Medical Insurance Program for the Poor (MIP) to provide better financial protection and improved access for socially and financially disadvantaged citizens. Studies evaluating MIP have noted its positive impact on financial protection, but find only a marginal impact on improved access. To better assess whether the effect of MIP varies according to different conditions, and to identify areas for improvement, we explored whether MIP differently affects utilization and costs among chronic patients compared to those with acute health needs.

Methods

Data were collected from two cross-sectional nationally representative household surveys conducted in 2007 and in 2010 that examined health care utilization rates and expenditures. Approximately 3,200 households were interviewed from each wave of both studies using a standardized survey questionnaire. Differences in health care utilization and expenditures between chronic and acute patients with and without MIP insurance were evaluated, using coarsened exact matching techniques.

Results

Among patients with chronic illnesses, MIP did not affect either health service utilization or expenditures for outpatient drugs and reduction in provider fees. For patients with acute illnesses MIP increased the odds (OR = 1.47) that they would use health services. MIP was also associated with a 20.16 Gel reduction in provider fees for those with acute illnesses (p = 0.003) and a 15.14 Gel reduction in outpatient drug expenditure (p = 0.013). Among those reporting a chronic illness with acute episode during the 30 days prior to the interview, MIP reduced expenditures on provider fees (B = -20.02 GEL) with marginal statistical significance.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the MIP may have improved utilization and reduce costs incurred by patients with acute health needs, while chronic patients marginally benefit only during exacerbation of their illnesses. This suggests that the MIP did not adequately address the needs of the aging Georgian population where chronic illnesses are prevalent. Increasing MIP benefits, particularly for patients with chronic illnesses, should receive priority attention if universal coverage objectives are to be achieved.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Gotsadze et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Belli P, Gotsadze G, Shahriari H: Out-of-pocket and informal payments in health sector: evidence from Georgia. Health Policy 2004, 70:109-23.
• [2]Gotsadze G, Bennet S, Ranson K, Gzirishvili D: Health care-seeking behaviour and out-of-pocket payments in Tbilisi, Georgia. Health Policy Plan 2005, 20:232-42.
• [3]World Health Organization. http://data.euro.who.int/hfadb.
• [4]NCDC- PH: Health Care, Statistical Yearbook 2013 Georgia. National Center For Disease Control And Public Health, Tbilisi; 2014.
• [5]Gamkrelidze A, Atun R, Gotsadze G, MacLehose L: Health care systems in transition: Georgia. European Observatory on Health Care Systems, Copenhagen; 2002.
• [6]Balabanova D, Roberts B, Richardson E, Haerpfer C, McKee M: Health care reform in the former Soviet Union: beyond the transition. Health Serv Res 2012, 47:840-64.
• [7]Social Service Agency. http://www.ssa.gov.ge.
• [8]National Statistics Office of Georgia. http://www.geostat.ge.
• [9]Zoidze A, Rukhadze N, Chkhatarashvili K, Gotsadze G: Promoting universal financial protection: health insurance for the poor in Georgia- a case study. Health Res Policy Syst 2013, 11:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Bauhoff S, Hotchkiss D, Smith O: The Impact of Medical Insurance for the poor in Georgia: a regression discontinuity approach. Health Econ 2011, 20:1362-78.
• [11]Hou X, Chao S: Targeted or untargeted? The initial assessment of a targeted health insurance program for the poor in Georgia. Health Policy 2011, 102:278-85.
• [12]MoLHSA:Health Utilization and Expenditure Survey. The final report. Tbilisi; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3598.7528.
• [13]Andersen RM: Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995, 36:1-10.
• [14]Iacus S, King G, Porro G: Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit Anal 2012, 20:1-24.
• [15]Blackwell M, Iacus S, King G, Porro G: Cem: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata J 2009, 9:524-46.
• [16]Fan VY, Mahal A: What prevents child diarrhoea? The impacts of water supply, toilets, and hand- washing in rural India. J Dev Eff 2011, 3:340-70.
• [17]Murphy A, Mahal A, Richardson E, Moran AE: The economic burden of chronic disease care faced by households in Ukraine: a cross-sectional matching study of angina patients. Int J Equity Health 2013, 12:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Iacus SM, King G, Porro G. Matching for Causal Inference Without Balance Checking. 2008. http://gking.harvard.edu/cem/.
• [19]Kankeu HT, Saksena P, Xu K, Evans DB: The financial burden from non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: a literature review. Health Res Policy Syst 2013, 11:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston; 2002.
• [21]Gotsadze G, Zoidze A, Rukhadze N: Household catastrophic health expenditure: evidence from Georgia and its policy implications. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]The Global Burden of Disease: Generating Evidence, Guiding Policy. http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org.