Does health service utilisation vary by remoteness? South Australian population data and the Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia

Objective: To compare rates of self-reported use of health services between rural, remote and urban South Australians. Methods: Secondary data analysis from a population-based survey to assess health and well-being, conducted in South Australia in 2000. In all, 2,454 adults were randomly selected and interviewed using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system. We analysed health service use by Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) category. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the median number of uses of the four types of health services studied across ARIA categories. Significantly fewer residents of highly accessible areas reported never using primary care services (14.4% vs. 22.2% in very remote areas), and significantly more reported high use ( greater than or equal to6 visits, 29.3% vs. 21.5%). Fewer residents of remote areas reported never attending hospital (65.6% vs. 73.8% in highly accessible areas). Frequency of use of mental health services was not statistically significantly different across ARIA categories. Very remote residents were more likely to spend at least one night in a public hospital (15.8%) than were residents of other areas (e.g. 5.9% for highly accessible areas). Conclusion: The self-reported frequency of use of a range of health services in South Australia was broadly similar across ARIA categories. However, use of primary care services was higher among residents of highly accessible areas and public hospital use increased with increasing remoteness. There is no evidence for systematic rural disadvantage in terms of self-reported health service utilisation in this State.

Matching prescription claims with medication data for nursing home residents: Implications for prescriber feedback, drug utilisation studies and selection of prescription claims database

Medication data retrieved from Australian Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) claims for 44 veterans residing in nursing homes and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) claims for 898 nursing home residents were compared with medication data from nursing home records to determine the optimal time interval for retrieving claims data and its validity. Optimal matching was achieved using 12 weeks of RPBS claims data, with 60% of medications in the RPBS claims located in nursing home administration records, and 78% of medications administered to nursing home residents identified in RPBS claims. In comparison, 48% of medications administered to nursing home residents could be found in 12 weeks of PBS data, and 56% of medications present in PBS claims could be matched with nursing home administration records. RPBS claims data was superior to PBS, due to the larger number of scheduled items available to veterans and the veteran's file number, which acts as a unique identifier. These findings should be taken into account when using prescription claims data for medication histories, prescriber feedback, drug utilisation, intervention or epidemiological studies. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.