ArticleHealth economics2025
Do Rurality-Based Financial Incentives Improve Equity of Primary Healthcare Access? Evidence From Australia.
Article in Health economics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Costs Following Medical Gender-Affirmation: Evidence From Whole-of-Population Australian Administrative Data.Health economics · 2026Article
- Data Resource Profile: Australia's Person Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA).International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Factors Related to Diabetes Educator Training and Credentialling to Meet the Needs of Rural and Remote Australians.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Australia, as in many other countries, people living in rural and remote areas experience poorer health outcomes and use less primary healthcare compared to urban populations. Aiming to reduce these inequities, in 2022 the Australian government increased rural-based financial incentives for General Practitioners (GPs) to "bulk bill" (i.e., provide care with zero patient out-of-pocket costs) children and concession card holders (low-income patients and older adults) living in rural and remote, but not urban areas. Using whole-of-population administrative data and exploiting variation in the eligibility of geographic areas to receive these incentives, we find that, compared to people living in urban areas, the reform led to a 2.7% (95% CI 2.2; 3.2) increase in the number of GP visits, a 9.0% (95% CI 8.4; 9.5) increase in the number of bulk billed GP visits, and a 13.0% (95% CI 12.4; 13.7) reduction in the out-of-pocket cost per GP visit among people living in rural areas. Effects were more pronounced for people with higher initial out-of-pocket costs-adults rather than children, people without concession cards, and people living in areas with less socioeconomic disadvantage. Altogether, while the reform has gone some way to reduce out-of-pocket costs for rural patients, benefits are unequal and inequities in access remain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.