Who Pays What for Primary Health Care? Patterns and Determinants of the Fees Paid by Patients in a Mixed Public-Private Financing Model
The New Zealand government introduced a Primary Health Care Strategy (PHCS) in 2001 aimed at improving access to primary health care, improving health, and reducing inequalities in health. The Strategy represented a substantive increase in health funding by government and a move from a targeted to a universal funding model. This paper uses representative national survey data to examine the distribution of fees paid for primary health care by different individuals under the mixed public-private financing model in place prior to the introduction of PHCS. Using multivariate regression analysis, we find that fees do vary, with people who might be expected to have greater needs paying less. However, apart from people with diabetes, there is no direct link between self-reported health status and fees paid. The findings indicate that a mixed public-private financing model can result in a fee structure which recognises differences across different population groups. The findings also provide a baseline against which changes in funding brought about by the PHCS can be evaluated.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Level 1, 97 Cuba Street, P.O. Box 24390, Wellington|
Web page: http://www.motu.org.nz
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jeffrey Richardson & Stuart Peacock & Duncan Mortimer, 2006. "Does an increase in the doctor supply reduce medical fees? An econometric analysis of medical fees across Australia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 253-266.
- Glenn Jones & Elizabeth Savage & Kees Van Gool, 2008. "The Distribution of Household Health Expenditures in Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(s1), pages 99-114, 09.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:09_01. 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: (Maxine Watene)
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.