Caretaker notice. Before an election, the Australian Government assumes a caretaker role. Limited updates will be made to this site in line with the Guidance on Caretaker Conventions.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10620/17272
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGoodall, Sen
dc.contributor.authorScott, Aen
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-13T03:33:50Zen
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-12T04:32:40Zen
dc.date.available2011-05-12T04:32:40Zen
dc.date.issued2008-03en
dc.identifier.isbnISSN 1328-4991 (Print) ISSN 1447-5863 (Online) ISBN 978-0-7340-3273-7en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10620/17272en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10620/3302en
dc.description.abstractThe pursuit of equity is a key objective of many health care systems, including Australia’s Medicare. Using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, we measured the extent of inequity in the utilisation of hospital services. We used methodology developed by the ECuity project for measuring horizontal inequity indices. We examine income-related health care inequities in both inpatient and day patient access and utilisation, whilst controlling for morbidity, demographic and socio-economic variables. The probability of hospital inpatient admission appeared equitable, but the probability of a day patient visit demonstrated a pro-rich distribution. Even more pronounced were the findings on the quantity of visits. The positive horizontal inequality indices indicate a degree of inequity favouring the rich, especially for inpatient utilisation. The pro-rich distribution of the probability of a day patient visit was associated with whether individuals held private health insurance. These results suggest that in Australia, which has a universal and comprehensive health system, the rich and poor are not treated equally according to need. Further research should investigate whether the causes of inequities lie in the preferences of individuals or the preferences of health care providers.en
dc.subjectHealth -- Access to servicesen
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.titleIs Hospital Treatment in Australia Inequitable? Evidence from the HILDA Surveyen
dc.typeReports and technical papersen
dc.identifier.urlhttps://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hildaen
dc.identifier.surveyHILDAen
dc.description.urlhttps://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hildaen
dc.description.institutionMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Researchen
dc.title.reportMelbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper Seriesen
dc.identifier.rishttp://flosse.dss.gov.au//ris.php?id=3560en
dc.description.pages37en
local.identifier.id3560en
dc.identifier.edition5-Augen
dc.identifier.edition5/08en
dc.subject.dssHealth and wellbeingen
dc.subject.dssIncome, wealth and financesen
dc.subject.dssmaincategoryHealthen
dc.subject.dsssubcategoryAccess to servicesen
dc.subject.flosseHealth and wellbeingen
dc.subject.flosseIncome, wealth and financesen
dc.relation.surveyHILDAen
dc.old.surveyvalueHILDAen
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeReports and technical papers-
Appears in Collections:Reports
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

1,896
checked on May 9, 2025
Google icon

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.