HLTHB3110 WALDEN UNIVERSITY CURRENT ISSUES IN HEALHTCARE POLICY AND PRACTICE

To prepare for this Assignment:

• Select two countries to compare to the U.S. Choose one developed country and one developing country for comparison.
• Read Chapter 2: Health, Health Care, and the Market Economy (Barr, 2016), specifically pages 24–41, located in the Learning Resources.
• Read Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: An international analysis (Corscadden, Levesque, Lewis, Strumpf, Breton, & Russell, 2018). Located in the Learning Resources area.
• Read Mirror, mirror on the wall: How the performance of the U.S. health care system compares internationally (Davis, Kristof, Squires, & Schoen, 2014). Located in the Learning Resources area.

Carefully read the instructions for completing the Healthcare Around the World Template, located in the Required Learning Resources area.

To complete this Assignment:

• Complete the Healthcare Around the World Template, located in the Required Learning Resources area.
• Support the narrative portion of the template with in-text citations and references from specific Learning Resources and outside scholarly sources.

2/11/24, 11:42 AM
Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis – PMC
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does
not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of
Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Int J Equity Health. 2018; 17: 28.
Published online 2018 Feb 20. doi: 10.1186/s12939-018-0740-1
PMCID: PMC5819269
PMID: 29458379
Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis
L. Corscadden, 1,2 J. F. Levesque,3,2 V. Lewis,4 E. Strumpf,5 M. Breton,6 and G. Russell7
Abstract
Background
Disparities in access to primary care (PC) have been demonstrated within and between health systems.
However, few studies have assessed the factors associated with multiple barriers to access occurring along
the care-seeking process in different healthcare systems.
Methods
In this secondary analysis of the 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Adults,
access was represented through participant responses to questions relating to access barriers either before
or after reaching the PC practice in 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and United States). The number of
respondents in each country ranged from 1000 to 7000 and the response rates ranged from 11% to 47%. We
used multivariable logistic regression models within each of eleven countries to identify disparities in re‐
sponse to the access barriers by age, sex, immigrant status, income and the presence of chronic conditions.
Results
Overall, one in five adults (21%) experienced multiple barriers before reaching PC practices. After reach‐
ing care, an average of 16% of adults had two or more barriers. There was a sixfold difference between na‐
tions in the experience of these barriers to access. Vulnerable groups experiencing multiple barriers were
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/
1/17
2/11/24, 11:42 AM
Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis – PMC
relatively consistent across countries. People with lower income were more likely to experience multiple
barriers, particularly before reaching primary care practices. Respondents with mental health problems and
those born outside the country displayed substantial vulnerability in terms of barriers after reaching care.
Conclusion
A greater understanding of the multiple barriers to access to PC across the stages of the care-seeking
process may help to inform planning and performance monitoring of disparities in access. Variation across
countries may reveal organisational and system drivers of access, and inform efforts to improve access to
PC for vulnerable groups. The cumulative nature of these barriers remains to be assessed.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0740-1) contains supplementary material, which is
available to authorized users.
Keywords: Primary care, Accessibility of healthcare services, Vulnerable groups, Mental health,
Healthcare disparities
Background
Improving access to primary care (PC) is a goal of most healthcare systems. Disparities in access to care
have been shown to exist between and within countries [1–5]. These disparities in access to PC in turn con‐
tribute to disparities in health, while improving access for vulnerable groups helps to reduce gaps in health
outcomes [6, 7].
There are various ways to conceptualise access. From a patient perspective, access to care has been con‐
ceptualized as a process from perceiving a need for care and seeking care, to reaching and obtaining care
and benefiting from the services received [8]. Reasons for unmet needs for healthcare have been demon‐
strated to exist at many stages, including in areas of availability, affordability and acceptability both before
and after physically reaching a provider [9, 10].
From an empirical perspective, disparities in access to PC have been documented across a range of mea‐
sures and vulnerable groups, with some consistencies and areas of divergence across countries. Foregoing
care due to cost, difficulties with after-hours primary care, and timely access to PC appointments are more
commonly experienced by people in lower income groups [5, 11–13]. Racial minorities and immigrants
have lower rates of affiliation with a regular care provider and more unmet health needs, with disparities
more pronounced in the United States than in Canada [14]. In many countries, people with multiple chron‐
ic conditions are more likely to have difficulties accessing after-hours care, and report having to wait sever‐
al days to get an appointment when sick, compared to people with no conditions [5]. People with chronic
conditions, particularly people with mental health conditions, were found to be more likely to forego care
due to cost and have higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs than people with no chronic conditions [15].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/
2/17
2/11/24, 11:42 AM
Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis – PMC
When barriers to access to care accumulate, there are impacts upon healthcare use patterns. For example,
studies have found a higher number of barriers to access were associated with more intensive use of emer‐
gency care in general [16] and for primary care reasons [17]. There is limited research investigating dispar‐
ities in multiple barriers to access to PC and how patterns differ across countries. Therefore, this secondary
data of an international survey systematically examines which population groups were more likely to expe‐
rience multiple barriers to accessing PC across a range of measures, population groups and countries.
Methods
We used the 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of adults aged 18 years and
over in 11 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Analyses were weighted so that the estimates were
representative of the age, sex, regional and education profile of adults in each country. The number of re‐
spondents ranged between countries from 1000 to 7000 adults (Additional file 1: Appendix 1).
Our choice of access measures in this analysis was based on the conceptual model proposed by Levesque et
al. [8] and followed an iterative prioritising process based on local innovation partnerships input described
elsewhere [18] with additional considerations from key literature [17]. Responses were dichotomised
(where applicable, responses of ‘sometimes, rarely and never’ were categorised as no, and ‘always and of‐
ten’ grouped as yes). Next, measures were grouped into barriers experienced: before reaching a PC
provider (no regular care provider; difficulties in accessing after-hours; difficulties in getting timely ap‐
pointment or response to call; skipping tests, medication, or care due to cost) and after reaching a PC
provider (regular care provider did not: listen carefully; know medical history; coordinate care, or spend
enough time). The number of barriers experienced before and after reaching care for each person was
calculated.
We considered vulnerable groups who may be more likely to face barriers to access to care as being those
participants with chronic conditions, lower income, females, people over 65, and those not born in the
country where they reside. In terms of chronic conditions, respondents were categorised into three groups:
1) people with no conditions; 2) those who said they had been diagnosed with a physical condition (includ‐
ing joint pain or arthritis, asthma or chronic lung disease, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension,
high blood pressure, or stroke); and 3) those who said they were told by a doctor they had a mental health
condition (regardless of the fact that they may have had other physical conditions).
For each country, the percentage of each vulnerable group, access barrier and combination of access barri‐
ers by group was calculated as well as a country average. Multivariable logistic regression models were run
using SAS/STAT software, Version 9.3 (Copyright © 2005 SAS Institute Inc.) for each of the 11 countries
to assess the likelihood of experiencing barriers to access to PC, adjusting for age, sex, income, chronic
conditions, immigrant status as well as hospitalisation in the previous two years as a proxy for more inten‐
sive health service use. Our primary outcomes of interest are experiencing multiple barriers: 1) before; and
2) after reaching PC. As secondary outcomes, we considered each access barrier individually, calculating
the number of times each vulnerable group was significantly more likely to experience barriers than a cor‐
responding reference group was calculated across all countries (significant adjusted odds ratio where p < 0.05). The number of times each population group was significantly more likely to face barriers for each country was also summarised. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 3/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Results One fifth of adults (21%) on average reported experiencing two or more barriers before reaching PC (rang‐ ing from 6% to 38% across countries). After reaching PC, among adults who had a regular care provider, 16% reported experiencing two or more barriers (ranging from 5% to 30% across countries) (Table 1). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 4/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Table 1 Population characteristics and barriers to access: average percentage and range across countries Country Range Australia Canada New average United United Germany Net Zealand Kingdom States (%) Independent variables - population characteristics Age 65 years and 21 (17, 25) 17 19 19 22 19 25 22 over Sex Female 51 (50, 53) 50 52 53 51 52 51 51 Income Below- 38 (24, 50) 40 39 31 29 40 38 24 13 (4, 23) 13 20 13 11 23 9 8 35 (29, 39) 29 39 34 31 39 32 32 17 (70, 93) 23 18 19 12 15 17 8 Hospitalization Hospitalized 18 (14, 30) 16 14 17 16 17 14 18 average Chronic Mental conditions health condition(s) w/wo physical Physical health condition(s) Immigrant Not born in status the country overnight Dependent variables - Barriers to access to PC Before No doctor 15 (1, 58) 14 15 11 19 23 2 1 reaching PC a 95 (92, 94 93 96 94 88 99 100 Have a regular 100) place of care After-hours 24 (6, 42) 17 37 14 25 28 35 6 18 (4, 31) 8 31 4 18 22 27 6 19 (12 33) 14 33 17 21 28 13 13 access very difficult Over five days to get appointment a N i l Note: All questions grouped regarding care after reaching PC were asked of people with a regular GP or place, therefore up to 8% of respondents across countries were excluded from answering the after reaching PC questions https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 5/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Figure 1 shows the average percentage of people experiencing multiple barriers by vulnerable group. People with mental health conditions, those below average income, and those born outside their country of residence were more likely to face multiple barriers, whereas seniors were less likely to experience any barriers to access PC. Country level results for these four vulnerable groups are shown in Fig. 2. Before reaching PC, people with mental health conditions were more likely to experience multiple barriers, partic‐ ularly in Australia and NZ. After reaching PC, people who were not born in the country appeared more likely to experience barriers, particularly in Norway, France, the UK, Switzerland, and the US. Fig. 1 Percentage of adults experiencing multiple barriers to access both before and after reaching PC, average of countries by population characteristics. Note: Descriptive results based on unadjusted country averages, full results available in the tech‐ nical appendix https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 6/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Fig. 2 Percentage of adults reporting experience of multiple barriers to access both before and after reaching PC, by country and four selected vulnerable groups. Note: Descriptive results based on weighted prevalence within countries by population group, sorted by the percentage of people with a mental health condition experiencing barriers before reaching PC. For variables with more than two categories, the group with the most pronounced barriers was selected Results of multivariable models estimating the odds of experiencing multiple (two or more) barriers before and after reaching care are summarised in Fig. 3 (full results are provided in the technical appendix show‐ ing country specific values and significance of each result). In most countries, people aged 65 years and over are less likely to experience multiple barriers than younger adults. People with below-average income were more likely to experience multiple barriers after reaching care with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) greater than one for all countries. Before reaching PC, people with below-average income, physical health conditions, and mental health conditions were more likely to experience barriers in all but one country (the UK, France and NZ for each of the vulnerabilities respectively). Being born outside the country of resi‐ dence was associated with multiple barriers particularly after reaching PC for the US, Switzerland, France, Canada and Australia (AOR ranged from 1.59 to 3.12, p < 0.05). There were few significant differences by sex, however females were more likely to experience multiple barriers: before reaching care in NZ (AOR 1.99 p < 0.05), and after reaching care in France and Sweden (AOR. 1.49 and 1.39 respectively, the AOR for NZ was higher but not significant). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 7/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Fig. 3 Adjusted odds ratios of multiple (two or more) barriers to access before and after reaching care across countries and popu‐ lation characteristics. Figure note: The lines represent the AOR = 1, adjusting for age, sex, immigrant status, income, chronic conditions, and being hospitalised. Each circle represents a country’s Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) from a full mod‐ el estimating the outcomes of having multiple barriers to access before and after reaching PC. See the technical appendix for full results by country and access measure. Results are excluded if the country had fewer than 100 respondents with the selected barrier The adjusted odds ratios for each access barrier individually as well as multiple barriers are provided in Fig. 4, to determine whether findings for multiple barriers are consistent across access measures. For al‐ most all access measures older age was protective and below-average income was associated with a greater likelihood of barriers. However, in some countries older people experienced more barriers with timely ac‐ cess to GP care and receiving clear explanations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 8/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Fig. 4 Adjusted odds ratios of all barriers to access, by countries and population characteristics, grouped by population. Figure note: Each circle represents a country’s AOR adjusting for age, sex, immigrant status, income, chronic conditions, and be‐ ing hospitalised. The lines represent the AOR = 1. See appendix for full details on respondents per country for each access measure. Reference groups are: 65 and over vs 18 to 34 years, female vs male, not born in the country vs born in the coun‐ try, below- average vs above-average income, presence of a physical condition(s) vs no conditions, and mental health con‐ dition (with or with out a physical one) vs no chronic conditions For people with mental health conditions the extent of barriers in access to PC varied by country and type of access barrier. People with mental health conditions were consistently more likely to face affordability barriers; foregoing consultations and medication and tests due to cost across countries (AOR ranged https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 9/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC from 1.20 to 4.83). However, they were less likely to say they had no regular care provider, or have long waits to see a GP compared to people with no mental health conditions in some countries. A summary of the number of times each population group was significantly more likely to face barriers is presented in Fig. 5. For each country and access measure combination, we ran a model to estimate the odds of experiencing barriers for all vulnerable groups considered. In total, 106 models were generated where there were sufficient respondents. The most common difference was for people with below-average income, who were significantly more likely to experience access barriers than the above-average income group in 50 of 106 possible models. People with a mental health condition were more likely to experience barriers compared to people with no conditions in 35 models, and people born outside the country they reside in were more likely to experience barriers in 30 models. Older people were less likely than younger people to experience barriers in 45 of 106 models (see the technical appendix for complete results). Fig. 5 Number of significant differences for each population compared to reference group across countries and all barriers to ac‐ cess. Figure Note: There were 106 total comparisons where there were sufficient numbers of respondents out of a possible 132 models (11 countries * 12 access measures). Numbers of responses of ‘events’ or barriers to access for each access measure and country, and results by country are provided in the technical appendix. Results are based on full models ad‐ justing for age, sex,immigrant status, income, chronic conditions, and being hospitalised in the past two years Discussion https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 10/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Access to PC spans from the identifiction of a health problem, to seeking care, to obtaining an appointment and reaching PC, and is affected by the characteristics of the interaction with the PC provider [8, 10]. Barriers to access to PC have been shown to vary by country and the measure of access [18]. This study goes further to assess which population groups are more likely to experience multiple access barriers, and summarise how patterns vary by population and measure of access. Results presented in this secondary analysis of an international survey shows many people experience mul‐ tiple barriers to care at different points in the pathway of accessing care. Further, certain population groups are disproportionately more likely to experience multiple barriers. Factors associated with experiencing multiple barriers to access to care were generally consistent across countries. These factors included; below-average income, immigrant status, and chronic conditions, partic‐ ularly mental health conditions. People with below-average income were more likely to experience barriers after reaching PC consistently across countries (AOR range across countries: 1.22 to 3.32). People with mental health conditions were more likely than people with no chronic conditions to experience multiple barriers before reaching PC, and statistically significant difference in 6 of 11 countries. Immigrants were more likely to experience multiple barriers, pariticuarly after reaching care (AOR ranged from 0.94 to 3.12). In contrast, age was protective, with people aged 65 and over less likely to experience barriers in most countries. Findings regarding income and age were consistent with the literature. Systematic reporting of disparities across 21 measures of access in the United States showed lower income was a risk factor for all measures, with disparities by ethnicity also prevalent but less pronounced [1]. Similarly, we found the number of sig‐ nificant differences by income to be the most persistent disparity across countries. Findings from past Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy surveys have shown that low income was a signficant risk factor across most countries and older age was protective for most access measures [5]. There is broad interest in addressing barriers in access to care for a range of vulnerable groups [19, 20]. There are many possible insights into why barriers exist or how to address them. In terms of barriers faced by people with low income, qualitative research has suggested provider lack of understanding of living in poverty may lead to the development of inappropriate care plans that do not acknowledge and account for patients’ social circumstances [21]. Disparities in access to PC faced by people born outside the country they reside in may indicate issues around seeking care; however, results in this analysis suggested they also experienced disparities after reaching PC, which may reflect language and cultural differences between pa‐ tients and providers. Finally, for people with mental health conditions, there may be additional factors at play such as the stigmatisation related to seeking care [22] as well as a lack of preparation of PC providers to deal with mental health issues [23]. As access is conceptualised from both provider and patient perspectives in the Levesque et al. model [8], we also consider factors related to both supply of, and demand for care to contribute to the reasons some groups experience multiple barriers to accessing care. In terms of demand, it has been suggested that peo‐ ple with mental health concerns are less likely to seek care, and interventions building trust in their physi‐ cians was a protective factor in care-seeking [24]. Provider preference or comfort in managing certain health conditions, particularly mental health, may also be a factor contributing to disparities some groups https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 11/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC face. In a regular survey of primary care providers, GPs were asked if they felt their clinic was prepared to manage care for different population groups. Fewer than half of GPs in the 11 surveyed countries said they were well prepared to manage people with serious mental health conditions or substance use issues – con‐ sistently lower than perceptions of preparedness to manage multiple chronic conditions [23]. This study suggests that factors associated with barriers to access do not occur in isolation and may be clustered and multifactorial. Research considering multiple risk factors also suggests that clinical and so‐ cial factors can also accumulate and interact to influence access to care [25]. This model recognises that factors associated with poorer access to PC are interconnected, such that people experiencing multiple vul‐ nerability factors may have even greater barriers to PC. For example, developing mental health conditions can impact income, and having lower income can impact mental health [26]. Another model of vulnerabili‐ ty suggests a risk factor profile approach to understanding disparities in healthcare [27]. Research has shown that an increased number of risk factors is associated with a greater likelihood of unmet needs [28]. Future work could consider the possible cumulative effects of multiple factors on the experiences of barri‐ ers to access to PC. Limitations There are limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. As it was a secondary analysis, the survey questions did not completely cover all five domains of the conceptual framework of access to care [8, 10]; therefore, we have considered a simplification of barriers before and after reaching PC. We have assumed the selected measures apply to primary care, rather than all healthcare. The survey also did not include in‐ formation regarding ethnicity or language spoken for all countries. Futher, rurality and education measures could not be created to be comparable across countries. These population factors are also known to be as‐ sociated with barriers to access to PC. Finally, the prevalence of people reporting they had mental health problems, ranged from 4% to 23% across countries and is likely to be underreported in some countries and through self-reported single item questions. For example, for Australia the prevalence of self-reported men‐ tal health problems was 13%, slightly lower than the 17.5% estimate from the National Health Survey [29]. There are data limitaitons associated with the survey that affect the comparability of disparity results across countries. First, there were different numbers of respondents and response rates for each country, therefore different power to detect significant differences. Our results reflect patterns across countries in the relationships and do not compare the size of disparities. We address issues of multiple comparisons in a de‐ scriptive manner by placing counts of significant differences, alongside descriptive bivariate patterns, as well as the size of odds ratios from multivariable models to identify consistant patterns in findings. Further, as analysis is based on survey data with wide margins of error (+/− 3–4%) [4] adjusted odds of 1.5 or more were generally significant, a magnitude which also appears meaningful from a face-validity perspective. Future work to understand the associations between population factors and access barriers over time in each country, as well as interactions between factors such as income and gender or health conditions may provide a fuller picture of patterns of disparities. Conclusions https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 12/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC There are many differences in the political and economic climates of the countries whose data were an‐ alysed; however, our findings show many consistent patterns in disparities of access to PC for various vul‐ nerable groups, as well as some that are more pronounced in certain contexts. Further our findings demon‐ strate the cumulative nature of barriers preventing people from fully accessing PC. Considering the charac‐ teristics of population groups that are more likely to experience barriers to access and the reasons they might have issues seeking, reaching or fully accessing care may help reorient health services to address disparities in access to PC. Country and population group differences in disparities suggest inequities in ac‐ cess are amenable to a range of policy, organisational and educational responses to reduce them. Additional file Additional file 1:(87K, docx) Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care - Technical Appendix. (DOCX 86.9 kb) Acknowledgements Data analyses were conducted as part of The Innovative Models Promoting Access to Care Transformation (IMPACT) Centre for Research Excellence funded by the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute (APHCRI) and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). The research group works with consumers, policy makers and providers through local innovation partnerships in Australia and Canada to identify organisational innovations designed to improve access to appropriate PHC for vulnera‐ ble populations, and establish the effectiveness and scalability of the most promising innovations. The in‐ formation and opinions contained in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of these fund‐ ing agencies. We also acknolwedege contributions Huei-Yang Chen for discussions on SAS coding, Ed Bury in pre‐ paring images for submission, as well as other IMPACT team members including Riki Lane in the discus‐ sion of this work as part of project team meetings. Concent for pubication Not applicable. Funding This study has been conducted as part of IMPACT (Improving Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation Program). IMPACT is funded by the CIHR Signature Initiative in Community-Based Primary Health Care, the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé, and the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute (which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 13/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Work by LC and JFL is supported by the Bureau of Health Information in New South Wales. ES and MB are supported by a chercheur boursier Junior 2 from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé. Availability of data and materials Commonwealth fund survey website: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives-and-data/in‐ ternational-survey-data. Abbreviations AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio GP General Practitioner IMPACT Innovative Models Promoting Access to Care Transformation NZ New Zealand PC Primary care UK United Kingdom US United States Authors’ contributions LC completed data analysis with support from ES, JFL. LC drafted the manuscript for publication and JFL, ES, VL contributed to the content and revision of the manuscript. GR contributed to working group meet‐ ings and revisions. MB contributed to revisions. LC managed revisions, literature and checking of the man‐ uscript. All authors read and approved the final version. Notes Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 14/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Footnotes Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0740-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Contributor Information L. Corscadden, Email: lisa.corscadden@health.nsw.gov.au. J. F. Levesque, Email: JeanFrederic.Levesque@health.nsw.gov.au. V. Lewis, Email: V.Lewis@latrobe.edu.au. E. Strumpf, Email: erin.strumpf@mcgill.ca. M. Breton, Email: mylaine.breton@usherbrooke.ca. G. Russell, Email: grant.russell@monash.edu. References 1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report: Chartbook on Access to Health Care 2015: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville; 2014. 2. Australian Institute for Health and Welfare . Australia's health 2016. Canberra: AIHW; 2016. [Google Scholar] 3. OECD . Health at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: O. Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar] 4. Schoen C, et al. Access, affordability, and insurance complexity are often worse in the United States compared to ten other countries. Health Aff. 2013;32(12):2205–2215. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0879. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 5. Schoen C, et al. How health insurance design affects access to care and costs, by income, in eleven countries. Health Aff. 2010;29(12):2323–2334. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0862. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 15/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC 6. Shi L. The impact of primary care: a focused review. Scientifica. 2012;2012:22. doi: 10.6064/2012/432892. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 7. Starfield B, Shi LY, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 8. Levesque JF, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:12–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 9. Sibley LM, Glazier RH. Reasons for self-reported unmet healthcare needs in Canada: a population-based provincial comparison. Healthcare Policy. 2009;5(1):87–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 10. Ward B, et al. Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for nonemergency care? Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(2):121–126. doi: 10.1071/AH14030. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 11. Davis K, Ballreich J. Equitable access to care--how the United States ranks internationally. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(17):1567– 1570. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1406707. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 12. De Looper M, Lafortune G. Measuring disparities in health status and in access and use of health care in OECD countries. OECD Health Working Papers. 2009;(43):1. 13. Osborn R, et al. In new survey of eleven countries, US adults still struggle with access to and affordability of health care. Health affairs (Project Hope) 2016;35(12):2327. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1088. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 14. Lasser KE, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. Access to care, health status, and health disparities in the United States and Canada: results of a cross-national population-based survey. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(7):1300–1307. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059402. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 15. Callander EJ, Corscadden L, Levesque J-F. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure and chronic disease – do Australians forgo care because of the cost? Aust J Prim Health. 2016;23:15–22. [PubMed] 16. Cheung PT, et al. National study of barriers to timely primary care and emergency department utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(1):4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.035. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 17. Macinko J, et al. Gaps in primary care and health system performance in six Latin American and Caribbean countries. Health Aff. 2016;35(8):1513–1521. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1366. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 18. Corscadden L, et al. Barriers to accessing primary health care: comparing Australian experiences internationally. Aust J Primary Health. 2017;23(3):223–8. [PubMed] 19. Richard L, et al. Equity of access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations: the IMPACT international online survey of innovations. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12939-016-0351-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 20. Grabovschi C, Loignon C, Fortin M. Mapping the concept of vulnerability related to health care disparities: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):94. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 21. Bloch G, Rozmovits L, Giambrone B. Barriers to primary care responsiveness to poverty as a risk factor for health. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(1):62. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 22. Thornicroft G. Stigma and discrimination limit access to mental health care. Epidemiol Psichiatria Sociale. 2008;17(01):14–19. doi: 10.1017/S1121189X00002621. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 16/17 2/11/24, 11:42 AM Factors associated with multiple barriers to access to primary care: an international analysis - PMC 23. Bureau of Health Information . Healthcare in Focus 2015. How does NSW compare. Sydney: BHI; 2016. [Google Scholar] 24. Thompson AE, et al. The influence of gender and other patient characteristics on health care-seeking behaviour: a QUALICOPC study. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0440-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 25. Shippee ND, et al. Cumulative complexity: a functional, patient-centered model of patient complexity can improve research and practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(10):1041–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 26. Schofield DJ, et al. The personal and national costs of mental health conditions: impacts on income, taxes, government support payments due to lost labour force participation. Bmc Psychiatry. 2011;11:72. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 27. Shi L, et al. Enhancing the measurement of health disparities for vulnerable populations. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(6):S45–S52. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000338386.59565.dc. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 28. Shi LY, Stevens GD. Vulnerability and unmet health care needs - the influence of multiple risk factors. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(2):148–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40136.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 29. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey: First Results, 2014-15. Cat. no. 4364.0.55.001 [Online]. ABS. 2015. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0012014-15?OpenDocument#Publications. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5819269/ 17/17 The COMMONWEALTH FUND 2014 UPDATE MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally Karen Davis, Kristof Stremikis, David Squires, and Cathy Schoen June 2014 The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that promotes a high performance health care system providing better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency. The Fund’s work focuses particularly on society’s most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults. The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries. The COMMONWEALTH FUND 2014 UPDATE MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally Karen Davis, Kristof Stremikis, David Squires, and Cathy Schoen June 2014 ABSTRACT The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in prior editions of Mirror, Mirror. The United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland. Since the data in this study were collected, the U.S. has made significant strides adopting health information technology and undertaking payment and delivery system reforms spurred by the Affordable Care Act. Continued implementation of the law could further encourage more affordable access and more efficient organization and delivery of health care, and allow investment in preventive and population health measures that could improve the performance of the U.S. health care system. Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund’s website and register to receive email alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub. no. 1755. CONTENTS ABOUT THE AUTHORS 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 Key Findings 8 Summary and Implications 9 INTRODUCTION 11 RESULTS 12 QUALITY 13 Effective Care 13 Safe Care 15 Coordinated Care 16 Patient-Centeredness 18 ACCESS 20 Cost-Related Access Problems 20 Timeliness of Care 20 EFFICIENCY 22 EQUITY 23 HEALTHY LIVES 25 DISCUSSION 26 METHODOLOGY APPENDIX 28 NOTES 30 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit ES-1 Overall Ranking Exhibit 1 International Comparison of Spending on Health, 1980–2011 Exhibit 2 11-Nation Summary Scores on Health System Performance Exhibit 3 Historical Ranking Exhibit 4a Effective Care Measures Exhibit 4b Safe Care Measures Exhibit 4c Coordinated Care Measures Exhibit 4d Patient-Centered Care Measures Exhibit 5 Access Measures Exhibit 6 Efficiency Measures Exhibit 7 Equity Measures Exhibit 8 Healthy Lives Measures Exhibit 9 Number of Individuals Surveyed ABOUT THE AUTHORS Karen Davis, Ph.D., is currently the Eugene and Mildred Lipitz Professor in the department of Health Policy and Management and director of the Roger C. Lipitz Center for Integrated Health Care at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Davis has served as president of The Commonwealth Fund, chairman of the department of Health Policy and Management at The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and deputy assistant secretary for Health Policy in the department of Health and Human Services. She also serves on the board of directors of the Geisinger Health System and Geisinger Health Plan and on the Board of Trustees of ProMedica Health System in Ohio. She received her doctoral degree in economics from Rice University. Kristof Stremikis, M.P.P., M.P.H., is the senior manager for policy at the Pacific Business Group on Health and is a former senior researcher for Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal. Previously, he served as consultant in the director’s office of the California Department of Healthcare Services, working on recommendations for a pay-for-performance system in the Medi-Cal program. Mr. Stremikis holds three undergraduate degrees in economics, political science, and history from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He received a master of public policy degree from the Goldman School at the University of California, Berkeley, and a master of public health degree from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. David A. Squires, M.A., is senior researcher to Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal. He was previously a senior researcher for the Fund’s Program on International Health Policy and Practice Innovations. Mr. Squires joined the Fund in September 2008, having worked for Abt Associates as associate analyst in domestic health. Mr. Squires holds a master’s degree in bioethics from New York University. Cathy Schoen, M.S., is senior vice president at The Commonwealth Fund and a member of the Fund’s executive management team. Her work includes strategic oversight of surveys, research, and policy initiatives to track health system performance. Previously, Ms. Schoen was on the research faculty of the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and directed special projects at the UMass Labor Relations and Research Center. During the 1980s, she directed the Service Employees International Union’s research and policy department. Earlier, she served as staff to President Carter’s national health insurance task force. Prior to federal service, she was a research fellow at the Brookings Institution. She has authored numerous publications on health policy and insurance issues, and national/international health system performance, including the Fund’s 2006, 2008, and 2011 National Scorecards on U.S. Health System Performance and the 2007, 2009, and 2014 State Scorecards, and coauthored the book Health and the War on Poverty. She holds an undergraduate degree in economics from Smith College and a graduate degree in economics from Boston College. Editorial support was provided by Ann Gordon. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.1 Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror.2 Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1). Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.3 It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).4 EXHIBIT ES-1. OVERALL RANKING COUNTRY RANKINGS Top 2* Middle Bottom 2* AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US OVERALL RANKING (2013) 4 10 9 5 5 7 7 3 2 1 11 Quality Care 2 9 8 7 5 4 11 10 3 1 5 Effective Care 4 7 9 6 5 2 11 10 8 1 3 Safe Care 3 10 2 6 7 9 11 5 4 1 7 Coordinated Care 4 8 9 10 5 2 7 11 3 1 6 Patient-Centered Care 5 8 10 7 3 6 11 9 2 1 4 8 9 11 2 4 7 6 4 2 1 9 Cost-Related Problem 9 5 10 4 8 6 3 1 7 1 11 Timeliness of Care 6 11 10 4 2 7 8 9 1 3 5 Efficiency 4 10 8 9 7 3 4 2 6 1 11 Equity 5 9 7 4 8 10 6 1 2 2 11 Healthy Lives 4 8 1 7 5 9 6 2 3 10 11 $3,800 $4,522 $4,118 $4,495 $5,099 $3,182 $5,669 $3,925 $5,643 $3,405 $8,508 Access Health Expenditures/Capita, 2011** Notes: * Includes ties. ** Expenditures shown in $US PPP (purchasing power parity); Australian $ data are from 2010. Source: Calculated by The Commonwealth Fund based on 2011 International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults; 2012 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians; 2013 International Health Policy Survey; Commonwealth Fund National Scorecard 2011; World Health Organization; and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Health Data, 2013 (Paris: OECD, Nov. 2013). 7 The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.5 Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law.6 Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with aboveaverage and below-average incomes. The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.7 For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health. Key Findings • Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions. • Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services. • Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national 8 health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available. • Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year. • Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives— mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives. Summary and Implications The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture. Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderateincome families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care. Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public 9 reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years. 10 MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally, 2014 Update INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, leaders in the United States have begun to recognize that the nation’s health care system is far more costly than any other system in the world (Exhibit 1) and does not produce demonstrably better results. The claim that the United States has “the best health care system in the world”8 is clearly not true. To reduce cost and improve outcomes, the U.S. must adopt and adapt lessons from effective health care systems both at home and around the world. International health outcome measures that are comparable across nations are limited, but crossnational surveys of patients and their physicians provide another method to compare health care system performance. Focusing on access to care, costs, and quality, these surveys allow assessments of important dimensions of health system performance. When such surveys include a common set of questions, they can overcome differences among national data systems and definitions that often frustrate cross-national comparisons. Since 1998, The Commonwealth Fund has supported annual international surveys about patients’ and health professionals’ experiences with their health care systems.9 Patients are clearly a key source of information about access and affordability—with surveys enabling comparisons of their experiences. Yet, survey results do have limitations. In addition to lacking clinical data on effectiveness of care and including data from a limited number of countries, the surveys focus on only part of EXHIBIT 1. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF SPENDING ON HEALTH, 1980–2011 Average spending on health per capita ($US PPP) Total expenditures on health as percent of GDP US SWIZ NOR NETH GER CAN FRA SWE AUS UK NZ 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 $8,508 18 16 14 12 17.7% 10 4,000 8.9% 8 $3,182 3,000 6 2,000 4 1,000 2 0 US FRA NETH SWIZ GER CAN NZ UK NOR SWE AUS 20 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 1 9 8 0 Note: $US PPP = purchasing power parity. Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Health Data, 2013 (Paris: OECD, Nov. 2013). 11 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 the health care quality picture—patient and primary care physician perceptions of the care they received and administered. This report includes 80 indicators, grouped into five dimensions of performance: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. These categories mirror those used in The Commonwealth Fund’s State Scorecard and National Scorecard series.10 The indicators are drawn heavily from the Fund’s international surveys—specifically, the 2011 survey of “sicker” adults, the 2012 survey of primary care physicians, and the 2013 survey of the general population. Additional indicators also are drawn from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on costs and health outcomes. The analysis ranks each indicator within each dimension to determine dimension ranks, and averages dimensions to determine the overall country rank. We tested several other ranking methodologies to confirm the stability of our rankings. A complete methodology is included in the appendix. While each of the 11 industrialized countries in this study has a unique health system, they all face cost and quality challenges. Comparing patient- and physician-reported experiences in these countries can inform the ongoing debate over how to make the U.S. health care system more effective and responsive to patient needs, and also may help other nations improve their own health care systems. RESULTS The U.S. ranks last overall, and last or close to last on four of the five dimensions of a high performance health system, including health outcomes. Exhibit 2 displays how each country ranked overall and provides a snapshot of how the 11 nations rank on the domains of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access, and efficiency. Switzerland, which ranks second overall, is among the leading countries on equity, timeliness of care, and patient-centered care. France ranks highest on healthy lives; Canada and the U.S. rank tenth and eleventh, respectively. The high- and low-performing countries have been relatively stable over time (Exhibit 3), with the U.S. ranked last among countries included in each edition. However, some caution is warranted when examining trends in rankings. Some indicators and domains have undergone minor variations between editions of the report, and a number of new countries have been added to the analysis, including four since the last EXHIBIT 2. 11-NATION SUMMARY SCORES ON HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE OVERALL RANKING Quality Care Effective Care Safe Care Coordinated Care Patient-Centered Care Access Cost-Related Access Problems Timeliness of Care Efficiency Equity Healthy Lives AUS 4 2 4 3 4 5 8 9 6 4 5 4 CAN 10 9 7 10 8 8 9 5 11 10 9 8 FRA 9 8 9 2 9 10 11 10 10 8 7 1 GER 5 7 6 6 10 7 2 4 4 9 4 7 12 NETH 5 5 5 7 5 3 4 8 2 7 8 5 NZ 7 4 2 9 2 6 7 6 7 3 10 9 NOR 7 11 11 11 7 11 6 3 8 4 6 6 SWE 3 10 10 5 11 9 4 1 9 2 1 2 SWIZ 2 3 8 4 3 2 2 7 1 6 2 3 UK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 10 US 11 5 3 7 6 4 9 11 5 11 11 11 EXHIBIT 3. HISTORICAL RANKING OVERALL RANKING (2014 EDITION) Overall Ranking (2010 edition) Overall Ranking (2007 edition) Overall Ranking (2006 edition) Overall Ranking (2004 edition) Health Expenditures per Capita, 2011* AUS 4 3 3 4 2 $3,800 CAN 10 6 5 5 4 $4,522 FRA 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a $4,118 GER 5 4 2 1 n/a $4,495 NETH 5 1 n/a n/a n/a $5,099 NZ 7 5 3 2 1 $3,182 NOR 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a $5,669 SWE 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a $3,925 SWIZ 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a $5,643 UK 1 2 1 3 3 $3,405 US 11 7 6 6 5 $8,508 * Expenditures shown in $US PPP (purchasing power parity); data for Australia from 2010. Data: OECD, OECD Health Data, 2013 (Nov. 2013). edition. Second, while in 2014 the top two and bottom two countries are clear outliers, the scores for many of the countries grouped in the middle are quite close, and so their rankings are sensitive to small variations in the data (for more on this, see the methodology appendix). For this reason, overall rankings may overshadow important absolute differences in performance, warranting closer examination of the data when describing a particular country’s performance. For this purpose, raw scores are included in the tables and discussed in relevant sections of the report. QUALITY High-quality care is defined in the Fund’s National Scorecard as care that is effective, safe, coordinated, and patient-centered. The United Kingdom ranks first and Norway last on quality, based on averages of the scores in these four areas (Exhibit 2). The U.S. falls in the midrange on this domain of performance. Effective Care An important indicator of quality is the degree to which patients receive “services that are effective and appropriate for preventing or treating a given condition and controlling chronic illness.”11 In this report, the indicators used to define effective care are grouped into two categories: prevention and chronic care (Exhibit 4a). Prevention. Preventive care is crucial to an effective health care delivery system. When utilized appropriately, lists of patients who are due or overdue for tests or preventive care, reminders for preventive care visits, and discussions of lifestyle issues can increase the effectiveness of care through the early diagnosis or prevention of illness. Consistent with previous editions of Mirror, Mirror, the U.S. does well in providing preventive care for its population. Respondents in the U.S. were more likely than those in most other countries to receive preventive care reminders and advice from their doctors on diet and exercise. Chronic care. Carefully managing the care of patients with chronic illnesses is another sign of an effective health care system. Overall, the U.K. outperforms all countries on each of the seven chronic care management indicators. Different countries, however, were successful on different aspects of chronic care. Australia performs well in delivering recommended services to patients with diabetes, as well as providing written instructions to chronically ill patients. A relatively large percentage of primary care physicians in the Netherlands 13 report that it is easy to print out lists of patients by diagnosis and lists of all medications taken by individual patients. Meanwhile, a very low percentage of chronically ill patients in Sweden did not follow recommended care or treatment plan because of cost. The U.S. is third on effective care overall, performing relatively well on prevention but average in comparison to other industrialized nations on quality of chronic care management. The U.K and New Zealand scored first and second, respectively, in terms of effective care. The widespread and effective use of health information technology (HIT) in the U.K. plays a large role in the country’s high score on the chronic care management indicators, as well as its performance on system aspects of preventive care delivery. All countries, however, have room for improvement to ensure patients uniformly receive effective care. EXHIBIT 4A. EFFECTIVE CARE MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ Ranking Scores NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Prevention Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients who are due or overdue for tests or preventive care Patients receive reminders for preventive care Patients routinely sent computerized reminder notices for preventive or follow-up care Doctor or other clinical staff talked with patient about a healthy diet and healthy eating Doctor or other clinical staff talked about exercise or physical activity Doctor or other clinical staff talked with patient about health risks and ways to quit (base: smokers) Chronic Care Patients with diabetes receiving all four recommended services† Patients with hypertension who have had cholesterol checked in past year Has chronic condition and did not receive recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care because of cost Primary care practices that routinely provide written instructions to patients with chronic diseases Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients by diagnosis Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of all medications taken by individual patients, including those prescribed by other doctors Pharmacist or doctor did not review and discuss all medications patient uses in the past year (base: taking 2 or more prescriptions regularly) NOR SWE SWIZ UK US 4 7 9 6 5 2 11 10 8 1 3 2012 65 23 34 40 72 81 5 16 28 88 30 4 9 6 5 3 2 11 10 8 1 7 2013 38 39 40 47 58 56 24 32 33 46 49 8 7 6 4 1 2 11 10 9 5 3 2012 76 35 64 35 80 95 17 55 48 95 52 4 9 5 9 3 1 11 6 8 1 7 2013 55 51 39 39 41 47 30 30 38 54 67 2 4 7 7 6 5 10 10 9 3 1 2013 54 54 50 47 44 51 39 43 40 51 70 2 2 6 7 8 4 11 9 10 4 1 2013 61 69 54 59 58 86 45 49 47 67 77 5 3 8 6 7 1 11 9 10 4 2 2011 56 40 26 39 49 53 33 41 34 76 50 2 7 11 8 5 3 10 6 9 1 4 2011 82 84 82 90 78 84 85 69 89 93 85 8 6 8 2 10 6 4 11 3 1 4 2011 20 8 10 12 8 17 8 5 11 4 33 10 3 6 8 3 9 3 2 7 1 11 2012 41 21 15 34 34 25 14 13 26 61 39 2 8 9 4 4 7 10 11 6 1 3 2012 72 39 27 53 77 74 38 45 25 96 49 4 8 10 5 2 3 9 7 11 1 6 2012 78 42 39 61 78 74 59 52 46 98 56 2 10 11 5 2 4 6 8 9 1 7 2011 34 28 58 29 41 31 62 55 25 16 28 7 3 10 5 8 6 11 9 2 1 3 † Recommended services include hemoglobin A1c checked in past six months, and feet examined, eyes examined, and cholesterol checked in past year. 14 Safe Care The Institute of Medicine describes safe care as “avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.”12 Sicker adults in Norway and New Zealand reported the highest rates of medical errors (Exhibit 4b). Among those who had a lab test in the previous two years, sicker adults in Canada were the most likely to experience delays in being notified about abnormal results. Norway, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada lag in terms of using HIT to receive computerized alerts or prompts about potential problems with drug doses or interactions, with scores markedly below international leaders. Only 22 percent of physicians in Norway reported receiving such alerts compared with 93 percent in the Netherlands. The U.S. ranks seventh of the 11 countries on safe care overall, while the United Kingdom ranks first. Differences in education, cultural norms, and media attention, as well as the subjective nature of communication between doctors and patients might influence patients’ perceptions of error. Therefore, caution must be used in relying only on patients’ perceptions to rank safety. Nevertheless, these findings indicate that the United States has improved on safety indicators since the publication of the last edition of Mirror, Mirror, when the country ranked last. For example, the U.S. now leads all nations with a relatively low number of sicker patients reporting an infection during a hospital stay or shortly after. Such progress could be indicative of the numerous safety initiatives under way throughout the country and recent imposition of financial penalties for hospitals with high rates of hospital-acquired conditions.13 EXHIBIT 4B. SAFE CARE MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR Ranking Scores SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Patient believed a medical mistake was made in treatment or care in past 2 years Patient given wrong medication or wrong dose at a pharmacy or while hospitalized in past 2 years Patient given incorrect results for a diagnostic or lab test in past 2 years (base: had a lab test ordered) Patient experienced delays in being notified about abnormal test results in past 2 years (base: had a lab test ordered) Hospitalized patients reporting infection in hospital or shortly after Doctor routinely receives a computerized alert or prompt about a potential problem with drug dose or interaction Doctor routinely recieves reminders for guideline-based interventions and/or tests 3 10 2 6 7 9 11 5 4 1 7 2011 10 11 6 8 11 13 17 11 4 4 11 5 6 3 4 6 10 11 6 1 1 6 2011 4 5 6 8 6 7 8 5 2 2 8 3 4 6 9 6 8 9 4 1 1 9 2011 4 5 3 2 6 5 4 3 3 2 5 6 8 3 1 11 8 6 3 3 1 8 2011 7 11 3 5 5 8 10 9 5 4 10 6 11 1 3 3 7 9 8 3 2 9 2011 9 11 8 10 12 12 10 8 10 12 5 4 8 2 5 9 9 5 2 5 9 1 2012 88 30 41 26 93 89 22 70 25 85 58 3 8 7 9 1 2 11 5 10 4 6 2012 58 34 53 16 18 53 10 14 32 78 49 2 6 3 9 8 3 11 10 7 1 5 15 Coordinated Care In its discussion of coordinated care, The Commonwealth Fund’s first National Scorecard report states, “Coordination of patient care throughout the course of treatment and across various sites of care helps to ensure appropriate follow-up treatment, minimize the risk of error, and prevent complications. Failure to properly coordinate and integrate care raises the costs of treatment, undermines delivery of appropriate, effective care, and puts patients’ safety at risk.”14 The United Kingdom ranks first on coordinated care measures, while Sweden ranks last and Germany next-to-last (Exhibit 4c). The United States ranks sixth. Sicker adults in the U.S. are least likely to report having a regular doctor (91%) while those in the Netherlands are most likely to have this connection (100%). Virtually all primary care physicians in France, New Zealand, and Switzerland report they always or often receive relevant information back from specialists, compared with just 59 percent in Sweden, 74 percent in the U.S., and 82 percent in Germany. Effective communication among patients, physicians, and hospitals is essential for high-quality care. Among sicker adults who had been hospitalized within the past two years, American patients were the most likely to receive a written plan for care after discharge and to know whom to contact for questions about their condition or treatment when leaving the hospital. Eighty-three percent of American patients had arrangements for follow-up visits with a doctor or other health care professional made for them when leaving the hospital, second only to the United Kingdom (87%). Physicians in Germany and New Zealand reported the highest rates of receiving information from the hospital needed to manage a patient’s care within two days of discharge. 16 EXHIBIT 4C. COORDINATED CARE MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ Ranking Scores NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Have a regular doctor or place Regular doctor or place always or often helps coordinate and arrange care from other doctors or places Specialist did not have information about medical history When primary care physicians refer a patient to a specialist, they always or often receive a report back with all relevant health information When primary care physicians refer a patient to a specialist, they always or often receive information about changes to a patients medication or care plan When primary care physicians refer a patient to a specialist, they always or often receive information that is timely and available when needed Doctor receives alert or prompt to provide patients with test results Know whom to contact for questions about condition or treatment (base: those hospitalized or having surgery within past 2 years) Receive written plan for care after discharge (base: those hospitalized or having surgery within past 2 years) Hospital made arrangements for followup visits with a doctor or other health care professional when leaving the hospital (base: those hospitalized or having surgery within past 2 years) Primary care physician always or often receives notification that patient has been seen in emergency room Primary care physician always or often receives notification that patient is being discharged from hospital Primary care physicians receive the information needed to manage a patient's care within 2 days after they were discharged from the hospital US 4 8 9 10 5 2 7 11 3 1 6 2011 97 96 99 97 100 99 99 95 99 99 91 7 9 2 7 1 2 2 10 2 2 11 2011 45 66 39 43 41 56 58 44 72 73 67 7 4 11 9 10 6 5 8 2 1 3 2011 18 18 38 33 16 10 24 22 10 6 18 5 5 11 10 4 2 9 8 2 1 5 2012 91 85 96 82 89 96 92 59 96 87 74 5 8 1 9 6 1 4 11 1 7 10 2012 89 79 94 75 59 95 88 63 87 88 69 3 7 2 8 11 1 4 10 6 4 9 2012 71 64 86 62 62 78 69 52 83 63 60 4 6 1 8 8 3 5 11 2 7 10 2012 71 39 41 28 18 45 35 27 52 70 57 1 7 6 9 11 5 8 10 4 2 3 2011 87 88 79 89 90 88 87 83 90 93 93 8 6 11 5 3 6 8 10 3 1 1 2011 68 70 62 69 54 66 54 48 69 80 92 6 3 8 4 9 7 9 11 4 2 1 2011 67 72 51 47 77 67 61 62 65 87 83 5 4 10 11 3 5 9 8 7 1 2 2012 72 61 49 66 97 94 75 43 73 86 60 6 8 10 7 1 2 4 11 5 3 9 2012 75 55 75 71 96 89 74 45 67 79 60 4 10 4 7 1 2 6 11 8 3 9 2012 36 15 10 67 42 56 14 21 40 21 45 6 9 11 1 4 2 10 7 5 7 3 17 Patient-Centeredness The Fund’s National Scorecard defines patient-centeredness as “care delivered with the patient’s needs and preferences in mind.”15 The surveys explored issues related to provider–patient communication, physician continuity and feedback, and engagement and patient preferences. The United Kingdom ranks first and Switzerland second among the 11 countries with respect to these measures. The U.S. ranks fourth (Exhibit 4d). All countries could improve substantially in this area. Communication. Communication measures included whether patients reported they always or often got an answer to their question by telephone from their doctor on the same day they called, and whether their doctor always or often explains things in a way they can understand. Patients who had been hospitalized were asked whether they had received clear instructions about what to watch for or when to seek further care. Norway and France scored relatively poorly on the three measures, while Germany and the U.K. were leaders. The U.S. was average in terms of the percentage of respondents who were able to contact the doctor’s office by phone and reported their doctors explain things in an understandable way. The U.S. had the highest number of patients who reported receiving clear instructions after hospital discharge. Continuity and feedback. The U.S. scored in the midrange on measures of continuity and feedback. Only slightly more than half (57%) of U.S. respondents had been with the same doctor for five years or more, compared with more than three-quarters (80%) of respondents in the Netherlands and France. The U.S. ranks third among the 11 countries in terms of physicians routinely receiving data on patient satisfaction and experiences with care: 60 percent of American physicians receive such data. As in previous editions of this report, the U.K. continues to lead most other nations in feedback: 84 percent of physicians in the U.K. receive patient satisfaction data. Engagement and patient preferences. The surveys measured patient engagement by asking respondents whether their doctor always tells them about their options for care and asks their opinions, discusses goals and encourages them to ask questions, and gives clear instructions about symptoms to watch for and when to seek treatment. Overall, Switzerland and the United Kingdom scored highly on measures of patient engagement, while Norway, Sweden, and France performed poorly. The United States did well on most indicators. 18 EXHIBIT 4D. PATIENT-CENTERED CARE MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ Ranking Scores NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Communication Patients reporting always or often getting telephone answer from doctor the same day (base: have a regular doctor and tried to contact by phone) Doctor always or often explains things in a way that is easy to understand Received clear instructions about symptoms to watch for and when to seek further care after surgery or when leaving the hospital (base: those who had surgery or been hospitalized) NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US 5 8 10 7 3 6 11 9 2 1 4 2013 79 67 63 90 84 80 78 84 82 75 73 6 10 11 1 2 5 7 2 4 8 9 2013 88 88 88 94 90 91 88 86 88 94 88 5 5 5 1 4 3 5 11 5 1 5 2011 82 83 65 70 77 80 69 70 85 88 92 5 4 11 8 7 6 10 8 3 2 1 2011 64 64 80 72 80 69 70 47 65 59 57 7 7 1 3 1 5 4 11 6 9 10 2012 56 15 1 35 39 51 7 90 15 84 60 4 8 11 7 6 5 10 1 8 2 3 2011 84 80 88 91 79 89 76 66 96 94 84 6 8 5 3 9 4 10 11 1 2 6 2011 77 77 61 63 79 75 65 67 85 87 71 4 4 11 10 3 6 9 8 2 1 7 2011 63 67 42 59 67 62 51 36 81 78 76 6 4 10 8 4 7 9 11 1 2 3 2011 72 72 49 70 82 78 52 61 92 85 80 6 6 11 8 3 5 10 9 1 2 4 2011 71 62 55 66 59 70 33 44 79 80 75 4 7 9 6 8 5 11 10 2 1 3 2011 66 66 56 64 64 63 44 49 84 80 75 4 4 9 6 6 8 11 10 1 2 3 Continuity and Feedback With same doctor 5 years or more Doctor routinely receives and reviews data on patient satisfaction and experiences with care Regular doctor always or often knows important information about patient's medical history Engagement and Patient Preferences Specialist always or often involves patient as much as they want in decisions about care and treatment (base: saw or needed to see specialist in past 2 years) Doctor or health care professional discussed patient's main goals or priorities in caring for condition (base: has chronic condition) Specialist always or often tells you about treatment choices (base: saw or needed to see specialist in past 2 years) Regular doctor always or often encouraged you to ask questions Doctor or health care professional gives clear instructions about symptoms, when to seek further care (base: has chronic condition) 19 ACCESS Patients have good access to health care when they can obtain affordable care and receive attention in a timely manner. The 2013 survey included questions about whether patients were able to afford needed care (Exhibit 5). The survey also asked whether patients had serious problems paying medical bills and assessed out-ofpocket costs in each of the 11 countries. Cost-Related Access Problems A higher percentage of people in the U.S. go without needed care because of cost than in any other surveyed nation. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems because of cost. Thirty-seven percent said they did not get recommended care, fill a prescription, or visit a doctor or clinic when they had a medical problem because of cost. In the next-highest country, the Netherlands, the comparable percentage was 22. Patients in the United Kingdcom and Sweden were the least likely to report having these cost-related access concerns (4% and 6%, respectively). Americans also reported negative insurance surprises and the highest rates of serious problems paying medical bills. Physicians in the U.S. acknowledge their patients have difficulty paying for care, with 59 percent believing affordability is a problem. Timeliness of Care While Switzerland and the U.K. rank highly on all measures of timeliness, different patterns surface for the other countries in the study, depending on the particular health care service. Patients in the U.S. face financial burdens, and were far less likely than patients in Switzerland and the U.K. to have rapid access (same or next day) to primary care when they needed medication attention. However, U.S. patients report relatively rapid access to specialized health care services. It is a common mistake to associate universal or near-universal coverage with long waiting times for specialized care. The U.K. has short waiting times for basic medical care and nonemergency access to services after hours. The U.K. also has improved waiting times to see a specialist and now rates fourth on this dimension with the U.S. ranking third. Patients in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland have rapid access to elective or nonemergency surgery compared with patients in the U.S. Canada ranks last or near-tolast on most measures of timeliness of care. 20 EXHIBIT 5. ACCESS MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ Ranking Scores NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING 8 9 11 2 4 7 6 4 2 1 9 Cost-Related Access Problems Did not fill a prescription; skipped recommended medical test, treatment, or followup; or had a medical problem but did not visit doctor or clinic in the past year because of cost Patient's insurance denied payment for medical care or did not pay as much as expected Patient had serious problems paying or was unable to pay medical bills Physicians think their patients often have difficulty paying for medications or out-ofpocket costs Out-of-pocket expenses for medical bills more than $1,000 in the past year, US$ equivalent 9 5 10 4 8 6 3 1 7 1 11 Timeliness of Care Last time needed medical attention, was able to see doctor or nurse the same or next day Very or somewhat difficult to get medical care in the evening, weekend, or on a holiday without going to the emergency room (base: sought after-hours care) Waiting time for emergency care was 2 hours or more (base: used an emergency room in past 2 years) Doctors report patients often experience difficulty getting specialized tests (e.g., CT, MRI) Doctors report patients often experience long wait times to receive treatment after diagnosis Waiting time to see a specialist was 2 months or more (base: saw or needed to see a specialist in past 2 years) Waiting time of 4 months or more for elective/nonemergency surgery (base: those needing elective surgery in past year) 2013 16 13 18 15 22 21 10 6 13 4 37 7 4 8 6 10 9 3 2 4 1 11 2013 15 14 17 14 13 6 3 3 16 3 28 8 6 10 6 5 4 1 1 9 1 11 2013 8 7 13 7 9 10 6 4 10 1 23 6 4 10 4 7 8 3 2 8 1 11 2012 25 26 29 21 42 26 4 6 16 13 59 6 7 9 5 10 7 1 2 4 3 11 2013 25 14 7 11 7 9 17 2 24 3 41 10 7 3 6 3 5 8 1 9 2 11 6 11 10 4 2 7 8 9 1 3 5 2011 63 51 75 59 70 75 59 50 79 79 59 6 10 3 7 5 3 7 11 1 1 7 2013 54 62 64 44 44 46 42 65 51 31 61 7 9 10 3 3 5 2 11 6 1 8 2013 25 48 36 23 17 14 34 32 18 16 28 6 11 10 5 3 1 9 8 4 2 7 2012 16 38 41 27 7 59 10 15 3 14 23 6 9 10 8 2 11 3 5 1 4 7 2012 20 23 59 25 20 34 29 21 2 21 8 3 7 11 8 3 10 9 5 1 5 2 2013 18 29 18 10 3 19 26 17 3 7 6 7 11 7 5 1 9 10 6 1 4 3 2013 10 18 1 15 22 6 4 * 7 7 9 3 2 1 8 10 5 3 * 6 4 3 * U.K. sample size too small. Note: The overall benchmark rating equally weights country performance on cost-related access problems and timeliness of care. 21 EFFICIENCY In the first National Scorecard report, efficiency is described in the following way: “An efficient, high-value health care system seeks to maximize the quality of care and outcomes given the resources committed, while ensuring that additional investments yield net value over time.”16 To measure efficiency, this report examines total national expenditures on health as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), as well as at the percentage spent on health administration and insurance. An important indicator from the 2013 survey of adults includes how much time patients spent on paperwork or disputes related to medical bills or health insurance. To get at administrative costs from a practice perspective, the 2012 survey asked primary care doctors about staff time spent on administrative issues related to claims or time spent getting their patient needed care because of coverage restrictions. Exhibit 6 also shows data from the 2011 survey of adults with health problems who visited the emergency department for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor had one been available, those whose medical records did not reach the doctor’s office in time for an appointment, and those who were sent for duplicate tests. It also reports on the incidence of recently hospitalized adults who went to the emergency department during recovery or were rehospitalized for complications. Efficiency indicators from the 2012 survey include whether or not primary care practices have “multifunctional clinical information technology.” To be defined as a primary care practice with multifunctional IT functionality, the practice must have an electronic medical record (EMR) system with two or more functions for ordering, patient information, panel information, and decision support. On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. scores last overall with poor performance on the two measures of national health expenditures, as well as on measures of administrative hassles, timely access to records and test results, duplicative tests, and rehospitalization. Among sicker respondents, those in Canada and the U.S. were most likely to visit the emergency department for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor had one been available, with rates twice as high as that of the United Kingdom and France. In the summary ranking, the U.K. and Sweden score first and second, respectively. 22 EXHIBIT 6. EFFICIENCY MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent) Source AUS CAN FRA OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Total expenditures on health as a percent of GDP* Percentage of national health expenditures spent on health administration and insurance* Patient spent a lot of time on paperwork or disputes related to medical bills Doctors report time spent on administrative issues related to insurance or claims is a major problem Doctors report time spent getting patients needed medications or treatment because of coverage restrictions is a major problem Visited ED for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had he/she been available (base: visited ED in past 2 years) Medical records/test results did not reach doctor’s office in time for appointment, in past 2 years Sent for duplicate tests in past 2 years Hospitalized patients went to ER or rehospitalized for complication after discharge Practice with multifunctional clinical information technology** Practice can electronically exchange patient clinical summaries and laboratory and diagnostic tests with doctors outside practice GER NETH NZ Ranking Scores NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US 4 10 8 9 7 3 4 2 6 1 11 2011 8.9 11.2 11.6 11.3 11.9 10.3 9.3 9.5 11.0 9.4 17.7 1 7 9 8 10 5 2 4 6 3 11 2011 1.8 3.3 6.7 5.3 3.9 4.0 0.6 1.4 4.7 3.4 7.1 3 4 10 9 6 7 1 2 8 5 11 2013 6 5 10 8 9 4 7 2 16 2 18 5 4 9 7 8 3 6 1 10 1 11 2012 31 21 39 52 48 33 15 35 54 17 51 4 3 7 10 8 5 1 6 11 2 9 2012 10 21 17 37 26 17 11 10 23 9 52 2 7 5 10 9 5 4 2 8 1 11 2011 31 41 21 28 26 22 28 28 25 16 40 9 11 2 6 5 3 6 6 4 1 10 2011 13 19 12 9 13 12 19 12 7 10 17 7 10 4 2 7 4 10 4 1 3 9 2011 9 9 12 10 7 6 5 5 8 6 17 7 7 10 9 5 3 1 1 6 3 11 2011 8 12 6 5 11 11 11 10 11 12 11 3 10 2 1 5 5 5 4 5 10 5 2012 60 10 6 7 33 59 4 19 11 68 27 2 8 10 9 4 3 11 6 7 1 5 2012 27 14 39 22 49 55 45 52 49 38 31 9 11 6 10 3 1 5 2 3 7 8 * Data: OECD, OECD Health Data, 2013 (Nov. 2013); Australia is 2010, U.K. is 1999. ** Primary care practice has EMR and 2+ functions for: ordering, patient info, panel info, decision support. EQUITY The Institute of Medicine defines equity as “providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”17 We grouped adults by two income categories: those who reported their incomes as above the country median and those who reported their incomes as below the country median. In all 11 countries, adults reporting below-average incomes were more likely to report chronic health problems (not shown). Thus, reports from these lowerincome adults provide particularly sensitive measures for how well each country performs in terms of meeting the needs of its most vulnerable population. 23 EXHIBIT 7. EQUITY MEASURES Raw Scores (Percent): Below-Average Income Raw Scores (Percent): Above-Average Income Source AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US Rated doctor fair/poor 2013 5 12 9 11 5 8 14 17 3 11 15 5 6 6 6 6 2 12 12 1 6 6 Rated quality of care fair/poor Had medical problem but did not visit doctor because of cost in the past year Did not get recommended test, treatment, or follow-up because of cost in the past year Did not fill prescription or skipped doses because of cost in the past year Last time needed medical attention was able to see doctor or nurse the same or next day Somewhat or very difficult to get care in the evenings, on weekends, or holidays (base: sought after-hours care) Waited 2 months or longer for specialist appointment (base: needed to see specialist in past 2 years) Waited 2 hours or more in ER (base: those going to ER) Unnecessary duplication of medical tests in past 2 years 2011 12 17 12 19 16 10 21 11 6 5 27 7 9 8 15 17 5 14 10 4 6 7 2013 14 7 11 11 16 23 7 5 11 1 39 5 3 3 4 8 15 3 2 4 3 17 2013 10 14 10 12 11 9 9 7 9 1 31 6 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 4 2 11 2013 14 8 11 8 20 18 7 4 11 4 30 8 4 6 3 14 9 4 1 6 2 12 2011 64 45 73 61 66 71 55 46 79 78 55 67 53 71 59 78 82 64 54 82 82 61 2013 58 67 64 44 53 64 48 67 56 40 70 58 59 62 47 35 42 37 63 52 30 53 2013 22 29 19 12 3 29 29 16 3 6 9 22 30 16 8 3 12 29 17 1 7 4 2013 28 48 34 20 22 15 33 37 20 24 36 20 43 39 21 13 10 27 29 15 11 16 2011 8 10 13 9 6 7 7 6 8 4 19 11 9 10 15 6 6 7 6 8 3 14 OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING In Exhibit 7, we compare how adults reporting their incomes as below average rate their access to care compared with those reporting their incomes as above average. The rankings are based on the percentagepoint difference between the responses of below-average-income respondents to above-average-income respondents, with a higher percentage gap indicating greater access problems for those with below-average incomes. We used survey measures expected to be sensitive to financial barriers to care, such as not getting needed or recommended care because of costs and difficulty getting care when needed. The U.S. ranks low on access to care measures, with low-income adults particularly at risk. As a result, it does poorly on all measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more of lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year. Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K. score highest on overall equity, with small differences between lower- and higher-income adults on most measures. The United States and New Zealand are last and secondto-last, respectively, on the equity domain. 24 EXHIBIT 7. EQUITY MEASURES (continued) Percentage-Point Difference Between Below-Average and Above-Average Income AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ Ranking Scores UK US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US 5 9 7 4 8 10 6 1 2 2 11 0 6 3 5 -1 6 2 5 2 5 9 2 9 5 6 1 9 3 6 3 6 11 5 8 4 4 -1 5 7 1 2 -1 20 7 10 5 5 1 7 9 3 4 1 11 9 4 8 7 8 8 4 3 7 -2 22 10 3 7 5 7 7 3 2 5 1 11 4 10 8 7 6 7 7 5 5 -1 20 2 10 9 6 5 6 6 3 3 1 11 6 4 5 5 6 9 3 3 5 2 18 8 4 5 5 8 10 2 2 5 1 11 3 8 -2 -2 12 11 9 8 3 4 6 3 7 1 1 11 10 9 7 3 5 6 0 8 2 -3 18 22 11 4 4 10 17 2 6 3 1 10 11 8 4 4 7 9 0 -1 3 4 0 17 0 -1 2 -1 5 4 1 8 9 4 11 4 1 7 1 10 8 5 -5 -1 9 5 6 8 5 13 20 7 3 1 2 9 3 6 7 3 10 11 -3 1 3 -6 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 2 7 10 1 3 7 3 3 3 7 11 HEALTHY LIVES The goal of a well-functioning health care system is to ensure that people lead long, healthy, and productive lives. To measure this dimension, Exhibit 8 includes three outcome indicators, including mortality amenable to health care—that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care; infant mortality; and healthy life expectancy. On the three healthy lives indicators, France ranks highest overall—scoring among the top three countries on each indicator—and Sweden ranks second. The U.S. ranks last on mortality amenable to health care, last on infant mortality, and second-to-last on healthy life expectancy at age 60. Notably, countries’ performance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nationally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indicators that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. The finding that the U.S. lags in health outcomes despite spending so much more than other countries on health care echoes the findings in the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 report on the health of the U.S. population, which found the U.S. has worse health and premature death rates in all age groups and at all income levels.18 The wealth of data amassed by the IOM underscores a clear need to focus on improving population health along with the performance of the health care delivery system. 25 EXHIBIT 8. HEALTHY LIVES MEASURES Raw Scores AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ OVERALL BENCHMARK RANKING Mortality amenable to health care (deaths per 57 77 55 76 100,000)a Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births)b 3.8 4.9 3.5 3.6 Healthy life expectancy at age 60 (average of 18.7 18.3 18.8 17.8 women and men)c a UK Ranking Scores US AUS CAN FRA GER NETH NZ NOR SWE SWIZ UK US 4 8 1 7 5 9 6 2 3 10 11 66 79 64 61 * 83 96 2 7 1 6 5 8 4 3 * 9 10 3.6 5.5 2.4 2.1 3.8 4.3 6.1 6 9 3 4 4 10 2 1 6 8 11 17.8 18.2 17.4 18.2 19.0 17.7 17.5 3 4 2 8 7 5 11 6 1 9 10 2006–07 World Health Organization (WHO) mortality data; Canada data from 2002–03. * Data not available for Switzerland. For more details on sources see the methodology appendix. b OECD, OECD Health Data, 2013 (Nov. 2013). Data are from 2011, except Canada (2009). c WHO Global Health Observatory Data Repository. Data from 2011. DISCUSSION This examination provides evidence of deficiencies in quality of care in the U.S. health system, as reflected by patients’ and physicians’ experiences. Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking. The nation’s substantial investment in health care is not yielding returns in terms of public satisfaction or health outcomes. Based on the indicators measured in the surveys, the U.S. rarely outperforms the other nations. While its quality scores have improved somewhat since the last edition of the report, the U.S. is still only average on the key subdomains of effective, safe, coordinated, and patient-centered care. It is apparent that many primary care physicians struggle to receive relevant clinical information from specialists and hospitals, complicating efforts to provide seamless, coordinated care. Among the 11 countries, the U.S. performed particularly poorly on measures of access; efficiency; equity; and healthy lives. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of health insurance coverage from the quality of care experiences reported by U.S. patients. Comprehensiveness of insurance and stability of coverage are likely to play a role in patients’ access to care and interactions with physicians. We found that insured Americans and higherincome Americans were more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report problems such as not getting recommended tests, treatments, or prescription drugs. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the lack of comprehensive health insurance coverage and the high out-of-pocket costs for care in the U.S., even among the insured and those with above-average incomes. Fragmented coverage and insurance instability undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination, including the sharing of information among p...