Ethnic inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare James Nazroo Sociology, School of Social Sciences james.nazroo@manchester.ac.uk
Emanuela Falaschetti, Mary Pierce and Paola Primatesta Department of Epidemiology, UCL Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Background •
Large body of evidence from the US demonstrating racial/ethnic inequalities in access to health care and outcomes of health care.
•
Insurance status is a key (but not the only) determinant of these.
•
US healthcare systems with universal access (military and veterans Affairs) appear to have fewer inequalities.
•
But evidence from the NHS, although limited, also suggests inequalities: • Greater use of primary care is not matched by greater use of secondary care; • Higher levels of dissatisfaction with care received; • Longer waits for appointments; • Poorer quality of practice infrastructure; • Language barriers during the consultation; • Less likely to get follow up services after initial consultation; • Longer waits for referral to specialist care; • Less likely to receive specialist treatments (revascularisation and thrombolysis).
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Objectives •
Examine ethnic inequalities in access to health care: • Primary care (GP and Dentist); • Out- and day-patient hospital care; • In-patient care.
•
Examine ethnic inequalities in the outcomes of care received for: • Hypertension • Raised cholesterol • Diabetes
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Methods: sample and data collection •
Health Survey for England, ethnic minority (1999 and 2004) and cardiovascular (1998 and 2003) years
•
Those aged 16-74
•
Nationally representative samples (but does not include ethnic minority people living in very low density areas) •
Stratified (NHS regions and socioeconomic profiles) and clustered sample
•
Addresses identified using the Postcode Address File (except the Chinese sample)
•
Ethnic minority sample also stratified according to Census data on ethnic density
•
Response rates vary by ethnicity (individual rate 60-70%)
•
Ethnicity classified according to family origins
•
Gives a large sample of Irish, Black Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese respondents
•
Language matched interviewers Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Methods: measures for access •
Visited a GP for consultation in the last two weeks (HSE 1999 only)
•
Been an in-patient (stayed overnight or longer) in the last year
•
Attended a hospital as an out- or day-patient in the last year
•
Have regular or occasional check-ups with a dentist (HSE 1999 only)
•
Analysis using stata and accounting for sample weights (to adjust for unequal probabilities of selection) and for the stratification and clustering of the sample
•
Models initially adjusted for age and gender; then for self-assessed health and limiting longstanding illness
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Visited a GP in the last two weeks (odds ratio compared with white English, adjusted for age and gender) 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Irish Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Caribbean
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Chinese
Visited a GP in the last two weeks (odds ratio and 95% c.i., compared with white English) 2.2
2.2 Adjusted for age and gender only
Ba
e es hi n
ad
es
hi C
C
hi n
es
hi
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
ng l
0.6
ta ni
0.6
Ba
0.8
kis
0.8
n
1.0
Pa
1.0
ia
1.2
In d
1.2
an
1.4
be
1.4
ar ib
1.6
C
1.6
Ir i s
1.8
e
1.8
n
2.0
h
2.0
h
+ self-reported health and limiting longstanding illness
In-patient in the last year (odds ratio and 95% c.i., compared with white English) 1.8
1.8
Ba
e es hi n
ad
es
hi C
C
hi n
es
hi
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
ng l
0.2
ta ni
0.2
Ba
0.4
kis
0.4
n
0.6
Pa
0.6
ia
0.8
In d
0.8
an
1.0
be
1.0
ar ib
1.2
C
1.2
Ir i s
1.4
e
1.4
n
1.6
h
1.6
h
+ self-reported health and limiting longstanding illness
Adjusted for age and gender only
Out or day-patient in the last year (odds ratio and 95% c.i., compared with white English) 1.4
e C
hi n
es
hi ad
es
n
ta ni
ng l
hi n
es
hi C
kis Ba
Ba
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Pa
0.4
ia
0.4
In d
0.6
an
0.6
be
0.8
ar ib
0.8
C
1.0
e
1.0
n
1.2
h
1.2
h
+ self-reported health and limiting longstanding illness
Adjusted for age and gender only
Ir i s
1.4
Visit dentist at least occasionally (odds ratio and 95% c.i., compared with white English) 1.2
1.2
+ self-reported health and limiting longstanding illness
Adjusted for age and gender only
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
e C
hi n
es
hi
ng l
ad
es
ta ni Ba
Pa
kis
ia In d
be
an
h Ir i s
ar ib
hi ne
se
hi C
C
Ba
ng
la d
ki st
es
an
i
di an
Pa
ib b ar C
In
ea
n
sh Ir i
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
n
0.0
0.0
Methods: measures for outcome of care •
Hypertension (diagnosed or measured ≥ 140/90) • • •
•
Raised total cholesterol (diagnosed or measured ≥ 5mmol/l) • • •
•
Hypertensive controlled: BP < 140/90 but report diagnosis or treatment Hypertensive uncontrolled: BP ≥ 140/90 and report diagnosis or treatment Hypertensive undiagnosed: BP ≥ 140/90, but no report of diagnosis or treatment
Controlled: cholesterol < 5 mmol/l but report diagnosis or treatment Raised uncontrolled: cholesterol ≥ 5mmol/l and report diagnosis or treatment Raised undiagnosed: cholesterol ≥ 5mmol/l, but no report of diagnosis or treatment
Diabetes (diagnosed or measured HbA1c > 6.5%) • • •
Diabetic controlled: HbA1c ≤ 7.5% with report of diagnosis or treatment Diabetic uncontrolled: HbA1c > 7.5% and report diagnosis or treatment Diabetic undiagnosed: HbA1c indicative of diabetes (> 6.5%) not diagnosed or treated
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Treatment outcomes for those with hypertension multinomial regression relative risks compared with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;controlledâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and white English
e C
hi n
es
hi
an
ar ib
C
hi n
es
hi
Ir i s C
Ba
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
es
0.2
ad
0.2
ng l
0.4
ta ni
0.4
Ba
0.6
kis
0.6
ia
0.8
In d
0.8
h
1.0
e
1.0
n
1.2
h
1.2
n
1.4
be
1.4
Undiagnosed
Pa
Uncontrolled
Model adjusted for estimated CVD risk (Framingham) and income
Treatment outcomes for those with raised cholesterol multinomial regression relative risks compared with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;controlledâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and white English
e C
hi n
es
hi
an
ar ib
C
hi n
es
hi
Ir i s C
Ba
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
es
0.2
ad
0.2
ng l
0.4
ta ni
0.4
Ba
0.6
kis
0.6
ia
0.8
In d
0.8
h
1.0
e
1.0
n
1.2
h
1.2
n
1.4
be
1.4
Undiagnosed
Pa
Uncontrolled
Model adjusted for estimated CVD risk (Framingham) and income
Treatment outcomes for those with diabetes multinomial regression relative risks compared with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;controlledâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and white English
e C
hi n
es
hi es ad
an
ar ib
C
hi n
es
hi
Ir i s C
Ba
ng l
ad
kis
es
ta ni
ia
an
In d
Pa
C
ar ib
be
Ir i s
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
ng l
0.5
ta ni
0.5
Ba
1.0
kis
1.0
Pa
1.5
n
1.5
h
2.0
e
2.0
n
2.5
h
2.5
ia
3.0
be
3.0
Undiagnosed (HbA1c > 6.5%)
In d
Uncontrolled (HbA1c > 7.5%)
Model adjusted for estimated CVD risk (Framingham) and income
Conclusions (1) •
No inequalities in access to GP services
•
No inequalities in outcomes of care for hypertension, raised cholesterol and, possibly, diabetes
•
Some inequalities in access to hospital services (particularly use of out- and day-patient services)
•
Marked inequalities in access to dental services
•
Limited subset of (important) conditions – contrary findings for other conditions and for reported levels of satisfaction with care received
•
Conditions largely managed in primary care settings
•
Response rates, sample size and power
Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester
Conclusions (2) •
Marked similarities between the US and UK in terms of ethnic inequalities in health and socioeconomic position
•
Marked differences in terms of access to and outcomes of healthcare
•
The effect of differences in healthcare systems – a health service with universal access?
•
But discrepancy between primary care and secondary care in England • Differences in thresholds triggering primary care consultation (lack of evidence) • Differences in thresholds for referral by practitioners (contradictory evidence) • Use of private care (some limited evidence) Combining the strengths of UMIST and The Victoria University of Manchester