Socio-economic differences in general practitioner and outpatient specialist care in the Netherlands: A matter of health insurance?
Equal treatment for equal needs, irrespective of socio-economic position, is a major issue in many countries. Although in the Netherlands differences in utilization of health care between population groups are less pronounced than in most other countries, some differences by socio-economic position do exist. Controlling for health status, individuals with a high socio-economic status have a higher probability of outpatient contacts with a specialist, but a lower probability of general practitioner contacts, compared with those with a low socioeconomic status. In this cross-sectional study, we studied whether socio-economic differences in GP and outpatient specialist care utilization that exist after health status is taken into account could be explained by different aspects of health insurance. The study population, in which people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, severe back complaints, and heart diseases are overrepresented, consists of 2867 respondents. Multivariate analyses show that the socio-economic differences in outpatient specialist contacts cannot be explained by differences in health insurance, whereas differences in general practitioner contacts can partially be explained by the fact that individuals with higher socio-economic status more often have a private (instead of public) insurance. This is not owing to differences in deductible or insurance coverage between public and private insurance, but is more likely to be caused by differences in regulatory aspects between these two insurance schemes (such as the stronger gate-keeper role of the general practitioner in the public insurance scheme).
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 44 (1997)
Issue (Month): 8 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:8:p:1161-1168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.