IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0232827.html

Sociodemographic and health service organizational factors associated with the choice of the private versus public sector for specialty visits: Evidence from a national survey in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Davide Pianori
  • Elisa Maietti
  • Jacopo Lenzi
  • Mattia Quargnolo
  • Stefano Guicciardi
  • Kadjo Yves Cedric Adja
  • Maria Pia Fantini
  • Federico Toth

Abstract

Introduction: Although Italy’s NHS is funded through general taxation, the private sector plays an important role in health service provision and financing. The aim of this paper was to identify the sociodemographic and health service organizational factors associated with the propensity to seek specialist care in the private sector. Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from the national Istat survey “Health conditions and use of health services” carried out in 2012–2013. We selected adults with a specialty visit in the previous 12 months in the four most frequent medical specialties: ophthalmology, cardiology, obstetrics/gynecology and orthopedics. The study outcome was the choice to use a private service. In order to investigate the determinants of private use, we adopted the socio-behavioral model by Andersen and Newman, making a distinction between sociodemographic and healthcare organizational factors. The associations with the outcome were analyzed using chi-squared test, t-test and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results and discussion: Use of private care varied widely, from 26.3% for cardiology to 53.6% for obstetrics/gynecology. Females, patients with higher educational levels and patients with higher self-reported economic resources sought more frequently private healthcare for all specialties; younger patients and employed patients were more likely to seek private care for ophthalmic conditions. Exemption from copayment for public services reduced more than half the propensity to seek private care. Trust in this healthcare service was the main reason for private users (52.5%) followed by waiting time (26.7%) and physician choice (20.1%). Conclusion: The attitude of the population to use private services for specialist visits is linked both to sociodemographic and health services organizational factors: the former are unmodifiable while the latter are susceptible to managerial and health policy actions. In a public-financed, universal coverage system, policy makers may act upon the organizational factors that make private health facilities more attractive in order to reduce private care use.

Suggested Citation

  • Davide Pianori & Elisa Maietti & Jacopo Lenzi & Mattia Quargnolo & Stefano Guicciardi & Kadjo Yves Cedric Adja & Maria Pia Fantini & Federico Toth, 2020. "Sociodemographic and health service organizational factors associated with the choice of the private versus public sector for specialty visits: Evidence from a national survey in Italy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232827
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232827
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232827&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0232827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabbri, Daniele & Monfardini, Chiara, 2009. "Rationing the public provision of healthcare in the presence of private supplements: Evidence from the Italian NHS," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 290-304, March.
    2. Vincenzo Atella & Francesco Brindisi & Partha Deb & Furio C. Rosati, 2004. "Determinants of access to physician services in Italy: a latent class seemingly unrelated probit approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 657-668, July.
    3. Propper, Carol, 2000. "The demand for private health care in the UK," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 855-876, November.
    4. Piperno, Aldo & Di Orio, Ferdinando, 1990. "Social differences in health and utilization of health services in Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 305-312, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arsen P. Davitadze, 2024. "Modeling Consumer Choice between Public and Private Health Care in Russia," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 23(2), pages 499-521.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Del Vecchio, Mario & Fenech, Lorenzo & Prenestini, Anna, 2015. "Private health care expenditure and quality in Beveridge systems: Cross-regional differences in the Italian NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 356-366.
    2. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    3. Martin Gaechter & Peter Schwazer & Engelbert Theurl, 2013. "Entry into the Physicians’ Market: Empirical Evidence from the Outpatient Sector in Austria," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 245-260, December.
    4. Atella, Vincenzo & Deb, Partha, 2008. "Are primary care physicians, public and private sector specialists substitutes or complements? Evidence from a simultaneous equations model for count data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 770-785, May.
    5. Massimo Baldini & Gilberto Turati, 2012. "Perceived quality of public services, liquidity constraints, and the demand of private specialist care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 487-511, April.
    6. Terence C. Cheng & Joan Costa-Font & Nattavudh Powdthavee, 2018. "Do You Have to Win It to Fix It? A Longitudinal Study of Lottery Winners and Their Health-Care Demand," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(1), pages 26-50, Winter.
    7. Meleddu, Marta & Pulina, Manuela & Scuderi, Raffaele, 2020. "Public and private healthcare services: What drives the choice?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    8. Terence Chai Cheng, 2011. "Measuring the Effects of Removing Subsidies for Private Insurance on Public Expenditure for Health Care," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n26, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Chai Cheng, T & Vahid, F, 2010. "Demand for hospital care and private health insurance in a mixed publicprivate system: empirical evidence using a simultaneous equation modeling approach," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/25, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Cheng, Terence Chai, 2014. "Measuring the effects of reducing subsidies for private insurance on public expenditure for health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 159-179.
    11. Finn, Claire & Harmon, Colm, 2006. "A dynamic model of demand for private health insurance in Ireland," Papers HRBWP17, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    12. Daniele Fabbri & Chiara Monfardini, 2016. "Opt Out or Top Up? Voluntary Health Care Insurance and the Public vs. Private Substitution," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(1), pages 75-93, February.
    13. Fiorillo, Damiano & Sabatini, Fabio, 2015. "Structural social capital and health in Italy," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 129-142.
    14. Jenni Blomgren & Lauri J Virta, 2020. "Socioeconomic differences in use of public, occupational and private health care: A register-linkage study of a working-age population in Finland," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Sabatini, Fabio, 2014. "The relationship between happiness and health: Evidence from Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 178-187.
    16. Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2016. "Cost-Sharing and Use of Health Services in Italy: Evidence from a Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Design," CSEF Working Papers 440, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    17. van der Meer, Joost B. W. & van den Bos, Johannes & Mackenbach, Johan P., 1996. "Socioeconomic differences in the utilization of health services in a Dutch population: the contribution of health status," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Alejandra Chovar & Felipe Vásquez & Guillermo Paraje, 2016. "Use of Medical Services in Chile: How Sensitive are The Results to Different Econometric Specifications?," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 776, Central Bank of Chile.
    19. Antonia Morga & Ana Xavier, "undated". "Hospital specialists' private practice and its impact on the number of NHS patients treated and on the delay for elective surgery," Discussion Papers 01/01, Department of Economics, University of York.
    20. Pizer, Steven D. & Prentice, Julia C., 2011. "Time is money: Outpatient waiting times and health insurance choices of elderly veterans in the United States," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 626-636, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.