Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512590›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2024

Insurance barriers and inequalities in health care access: evidence from dual practice.

Eva Goetjes, Katharina E Blankart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva GoetjesCINCH Health Economics Research Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, Berliner Platz 6-8, 45127, Essen, Germany. eva.goetjes@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6390-3392
Katharina E BlankartCINCH Health Economics Research Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, Berliner Platz 6-8, 45127, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9831-1787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigate access disparities in pharmaceutical care among German patients with type 2 diabetes, focusing on differences between public and private health insurance schemes. The primary objectives include investigating whether patients with private health insurance experience enhanced access to antidiabetic care and analyzing whether the treatment received by public and private patients is influenced by the practice composition, particularly the proportion of private patients.

methodsWe estimate fixed effect regression models, to isolate the effect of insurance schemes on treatment choices. We utilize data from a prescriber panel comprising 681 physicians collectively serving 68,362 patients undergoing antidiabetic treatments.

resultsThe analysis reveals a significant effect of the patient's insurance status on antidiabetic care access. Patients covered by private insurance show a 10-percentage-point higher likelihood of receiving less complex treatments compared to those with public insurance. Furthermore, the composition of physicians' practices plays a crucial role in determining the likelihood of patients receiving less complex treatments. Notably, the most pronounced disparities in access are observed in practices mirroring the regional average composition.

conclusionsOur findings underscore strategic physician navigation across diverse health insurance schemes in ambulatory care settings, impacting patient access to innovative treatments.

Indexed as

Equity of careHealth insurancePhysician treatment stylePractice composition

Identifiers

PMID38512590
PMCPMC10956272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.