Understanding variation in healthcare utilisation: start with health needs

In their paper on the effect of illness adjustment on regional mortality and spending rates using standard and visit corrected illness methods for adjustment, Wennberg and colleagues compare adjustment using diagnoses listed in administrative databases with additional adjustment for the frequency of doctors’ visits.1 They acknowledge that data on the use of healthcare cannot be used directly as a proxy for need or risk because these data also reflect differences in access to and supply of healthcare services. However, the methods of risk adjustment developed by these and other authors are based exactly on these data. Steventon’s editorial does not challenge this approach.2

Myself and Michael Soljak suggest in a letter published in the BMJ that this problem should be approached using the fundamental public health principle of disease prevalence in a population (“health needs assessment”). Good measures of the incidence and prevalence of disease known to primary healthcare services and the prevalence of undiagnosed disease in the population (which can lead to emergency hospital admissions in particular) are needed with this approach. Of course access to, and supply of healthcare services, affect costs and utilisation, but these must be seen in the context of healthcare needs as manifested by disease incidence and prevalence and its severity, along with other measures such as frailty.

Comments

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...

Medical Centre

Search This Blog