Private health care coverage and increased risk of obstetric intervention

Background: When clinically indicated, common obstetric interventions can greatly improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, variation in intervention rates suggests that obstetric practice may not be solely driven by case criteria. Methods: Differences in obstetric intervention rates by private and public status in Ireland were examined using nationally representative hospital discharge data. A retrospective cohort study was performed on childbirth hospitalisations occurring between 2005 and 2010. Multivariate logistic regression analysis with correction for the relative risk was conducted to determine the risk of obstetric intervention (caesarean delivery, operative vaginal delivery, induction of labour or episiotomy) by private or public status while adjusting for obstetric risk factors. Results: 403,642 childbirth hospitalisations were reviewed; approximately one-third of maternities (30.2%) were booked privately. After controlling for relevant obstetric risk factors, women with private coverage were more likely to have an elective caesarean delivery (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.45-1.51), an emergency caesarean delivery (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.12-1.16) and an operative vaginal delivery (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.27). Compared to women with public coverage who had a vaginal delivery, women with private coverage were 40% more likely to have an episiotomy (RR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.38-1.43). Conclusions: Irrespective of obstetric risk factors, women who opted for private maternity care were significantly more likely to have an obstetric intervention. To better understand both clinical and non-clinical dynamics, future studies of examining health care coverage status and obstetric intervention would ideally apply mixed-method techniques.

An empirical examination of risk equalisation in a regulated community rated health insurance market

Despite universal access entitlements to the public healthcare system in Ireland, over half the population is covered by voluntary private health insurance. The market operates on the basis of community rating, open enrolment and lifetime cover. A set of minimum benefits also exists, and two risk equalisation schemes have been put in place but neither was implemented. These schemes have proved highly controversial. To date, the debate has primarily consisted of qualitative arguments. This study adds a quantitative element by analysing a number of pertinent issues. A model of a community rated insurance market is developed, which shows that community rating can only be maintained in a competitive market if all insurers in the market have the same risk profile as the market overall. This has relevance to the Irish market in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision to set aside risk equalisation. Two reasons why insurers’ risk profiles might differ are adverse selection and risk selection. Evidence is found of the existence of both forms of selection in the Irish market. A move from single rate community rating to lifetime community rating in Australia had significant consequences for take-up rates and the age profile of the insured population. A similar move has been proposed in Ireland. It is found that, although this might improve the stability of community rating in the short term, it would not negate the need for risk equalisation. If community rating were to collapse then risk rating might result. A comparison of the Irish, Australian and UK health insurance markets suggests that community rating encourages higher take-up among older consumers than risk rating. Analysis of Irish hospital discharge figures suggests that this yields significant savings for the Irish public healthcare system. This thesis has implications for government policy towards private health insurance in Ireland.