We compared health status, access to care, and utilization of medical services in the United States and Canada and compared disparities according to race, income, and immigrant status.
We analyzed population-based data on 3505 Canadian and 5183 US adults from the Joint Canada/US Survey of Health. Controlling for gender, age, income, race, and immigrant status, we used logistic regression to analyze country as a predictor of access to care, quality of care, and satisfaction with care and as a predictor of disparities in these measures.
In multivariate analyses, US respondents (compared with Canadians) were less likely to have a regular doctor, more likely to have unmet health needs, and more likely to forgo needed medicines. Disparities on the basis of race, income, and immigrant status were present in both countries but were more extreme in the United States.
United States residents are less able to access care than are Canadians. Universal coverage appears to reduce most disparities in access to care.
Notes
Cites: BMJ. 2000 Apr 1;320(7239):898-90210741994
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 1999 May-Jun;18(3):206-1610388217
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 May-Jun;21(3):182-9112025982
Cites: Health Rep. 2002;13(2):23-3412743954
Cites: JAMA. 2004 Mar 3;291(9):1100-714996779
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 May-Jun;23(3):89-9915160806
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 9;351(11):1137-4215356313
Cites: Health Aff (Millwood). 1990 Summer;9(2):185-922365256
Cites: JAMA. 1994 Aug 17;272(7):530-48046807
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1996 Apr;86(4):520-48604782
Cites: Health Rep. 1996 Spring;7(4):33-45, 37-508679956
Cites: Health Rep. 1996 Summer;8(1):25-32 (Eng); 25-33 (Fre)8844178
Cites: Stat Methods Med Res. 1996 Sep;5(3):311-298931198
Cites: Health Rep. 1996 Winter;8(3):29-38(Eng); 31-41(Fre)9085119
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1997 Jul;87(7):1156-639240106
Cites: Health Rep. 1995;7(2):25-32(Eng); 29-37(Fre)9395439
Cites: J Gen Intern Med. 1998 Feb;13(2):77-859502366
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 1998 Sep 1;129(5):406-119735069
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 1998 Sep 1;129(5):412-69735070
This commentary by Victorian Order of Nurses Canada, written in response to "Getting What We Pay For? The Value-for-Money Challenge," by McGrail, Zierler and Ip, answers four key questions about Canada's home and community care sector: (1) What are our objectives? (2) Where do we achieve good value now? (3) Where and why are we failing? and (4) What will help us do better? We conclude that although the home and community care sector offers great promise in meeting the evolving health and social needs of Canadians, it is not living up to its potential. We propose the development of a national, integrated approach to home and community care to help Canadians remain healthy and independent in their homes. This would represent a wise financial investment for governments and would contribute to the long-term health of Canadians.
In this paper we discuss the Russian adult health crisis and its implications. Although some hope that economic growth will trigger improvements in health, we argue that a scenario is more likely in which the unfavorable health status would become a barrier to economic growth. We also show that ill health is negatively affecting the economic well-being of individuals and households. We provide suggestions on interventions to improve health conditions in the Russian Federation, and we show that if health improvements are achieved, this will result in substantial economic gains in the future.
[A municipal order for the delivery of medical care to the population of a specific area as a variant in onging planning (the estimation of the critical services volume)].
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) represent almost half the world's population, and all five national governments recently committed to work nationally, regionally, and globally to ensure that universal health coverage (UHC) is achieved. This analysis reviews national efforts to achieve UHC. With a broad range of health indicators, life expectancy (ranging from 53 years to 73 years), and mortality rate in children younger than 5 years (ranging from 10·3 to 44·6 deaths per 1000 livebirths), a review of progress in each of the BRICS countries shows that each has some way to go before achieving UHC. The BRICS countries show substantial, and often similar, challenges in moving towards UHC. On the basis of a review of each country, the most pressing problems are: raising insufficient public spending; stewarding mixed private and public health systems; ensuring equity; meeting the demands for more human resources; managing changing demographics and disease burdens; and addressing the social determinants of health. Increases in public funding can be used to show how BRICS health ministries could accelerate progress to achieve UHC. Although all the BRICS countries have devoted increased resources to health, the biggest increase has been in China, which was probably facilitated by China's rapid economic growth. However, the BRICS country with the second highest economic growth, India, has had the least improvement in public funding for health. Future research to understand such different levels of prioritisation of the health sector in these countries could be useful. Similarly, the role of strategic purchasing in working with powerful private sectors, the effect of federal structures, and the implications of investment in primary health care as a foundation for UHC could be explored. These issues could serve as the basis on which BRICS countries focus their efforts to share ideas and strategies.
