Primary healthcare seeking behaviour of low-income patients across the public and private health sectors in South Africa.
Health care seeking behaviour
NHI
Preferences
Primary healthcare
Private sector
Utilisation
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 09 2021
09 09 2021
Historique:
received:
03
02
2021
accepted:
29
08
2021
entrez:
10
9
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
15
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) system aims to re-engineer primary healthcare (PHC) in South Africa, envisioning both private sector providers and public sector clinics as independent contracting units to the NHI Fund. In 2017, 16% of the South African population had private medical insurance and predominately utilised private providers. However, it is estimated that up to 28% of the population access private PHC services, with a meaningful segment of the low-income, uninsured population paying for these services out-of-pocket. The study objective was to characterise the health seeking behaviour of low-income, patients accessing PHC services in both the public and private sectors, patient movement between sectors, and factors influencing their facility choice. We conducted once-off patient interviews on a random sample of 153 patients at 7 private PHC providers (primarily providing services to the low-income mostly uninsured patient population) and their matched public PHC clinic (7 facilities). The majority of participants were economically active (96/153, 63%), 139/153 (91%) did not have health insurance, and 104/153 (68%) earned up to $621/month. A multiple response question found affordability (67%) and convenience (60%) were ranked as the most important reasons for choosing to usually access care at public clinics (48%); whilst convenience (71%) and quality of care (59%) were key reasons for choosing the private sector (32%). There is movement between sectors: 23/76 (30%) of those interviewed at a private facility and 8/77 (10%) of those interviewed at a public facility indicated usually accessing PHC services at a mix of private and public facilities. Results indicate cycling between the private and public sectors with different factors influencing facility choice. It is imperative to understand the potential impact on where PHC services are accessed once affordability is mitigated through the NHI as this has implications on planning and contracting of services under the NHI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) system aims to re-engineer primary healthcare (PHC) in South Africa, envisioning both private sector providers and public sector clinics as independent contracting units to the NHI Fund. In 2017, 16% of the South African population had private medical insurance and predominately utilised private providers. However, it is estimated that up to 28% of the population access private PHC services, with a meaningful segment of the low-income, uninsured population paying for these services out-of-pocket. The study objective was to characterise the health seeking behaviour of low-income, patients accessing PHC services in both the public and private sectors, patient movement between sectors, and factors influencing their facility choice.
METHODS
We conducted once-off patient interviews on a random sample of 153 patients at 7 private PHC providers (primarily providing services to the low-income mostly uninsured patient population) and their matched public PHC clinic (7 facilities).
RESULTS
The majority of participants were economically active (96/153, 63%), 139/153 (91%) did not have health insurance, and 104/153 (68%) earned up to $621/month. A multiple response question found affordability (67%) and convenience (60%) were ranked as the most important reasons for choosing to usually access care at public clinics (48%); whilst convenience (71%) and quality of care (59%) were key reasons for choosing the private sector (32%). There is movement between sectors: 23/76 (30%) of those interviewed at a private facility and 8/77 (10%) of those interviewed at a public facility indicated usually accessing PHC services at a mix of private and public facilities. Results indicate cycling between the private and public sectors with different factors influencing facility choice.
CONCLUSIONS
It is imperative to understand the potential impact on where PHC services are accessed once affordability is mitigated through the NHI as this has implications on planning and contracting of services under the NHI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34503478
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11678-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11678-9
pmc: PMC8431853
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1649Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH119923
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2006 Nov;37(6):1242-53
pubmed: 17333784
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Dec 5;17(1):179
pubmed: 30518378
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 13;19(1):160
pubmed: 30866926
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 19;16(1):592
pubmed: 27760531
S Afr Med J. 2019 Sep 30;109(10):771-783
pubmed: 31635576
J Health Soc Behav. 1995 Mar;36(1):1-10
pubmed: 7738325
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Jun;30(5):600-11
pubmed: 24876077
Int J Equity Health. 2014 Mar 19;13:25
pubmed: 24645876
J Public Health Policy. 2011;32 Suppl 1:S102-23
pubmed: 21730985
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Mar;27(2):156-65
pubmed: 21414993
Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1305765
pubmed: 28574794
Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2018 Jun;16(1):52-60
pubmed: 30254559
S Afr Med J. 2012 Aug 01;102(10):794-7
pubmed: 23034207
Health Policy Plan. 2006 Nov;21(6):459-68
pubmed: 17030551
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Sep 21;16(1):504
pubmed: 27655007
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2016 Jun 15;8(1):e1-6
pubmed: 27380785
PLoS One. 2014 May 19;9(5):e97521
pubmed: 24842536
Int Health. 2011 Mar;3(1):44-9
pubmed: 24038049