FACTORS INFLUENCING CHOICE OF CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD AMONG MARRIED FECUND WOMEN WHO INTEND NO ADDITIONAL BIRTHS: HEALTH BELIEF MODEL AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES

This research examined to what extent Health Belief Model (HBM) and socioeconomic variables were useful in explaining the choice whether or not more effective contraceptive methods were used among married fecund women intending no additional births. The source of the data was the 1976 National Survey of Family Growth conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Health Statistics. Using the HBM as a framework for multivariate analyses limited support was found (using available measures) that the HBM components of motivation and perceived efficacy influence the likelihood of more effective contraceptive method use. Support was also found that modifying variables suggested by the HBM can influence the effects of HBM components on the likelihood of more effective method use. Socioeconomic variables were found, using all cases and some subgroups, to have a significant additional influence on the likelihood of use of more effective methods. Limited support was found for the concept that the greater the opportunity costs of an unwanted birth the greater the likelihood of use of more effective contraceptive methods. This research supports the use of HBM and socioeconomic variables to explain the likelihood of a protective health behavior, use of more effective contraception if no additional births are intended.^

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE DEMAND FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE IN THE UNITED STATES

The purpose of this study was to understand the role of principle economic, sociodemographic and health status factors in determining the likelihood and volume of prescription drug use. Econometric demand regression models were developed for this purpose. Ten explanatory variables were examined: family income, coinsurance rate, age, sex, race, household head education level, size of family, health status, number of medical visits, and type of provider seen during medical visits. The economic factors (family income and coinsurance) were given special emphasis in this study.^ The National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey (NMCUES) was the data source. The sample represented the civilian, noninstitutionalized residents of the United States in 1980. The sample method used in the survey was a stratified four-stage, area probability design. The sample was comprised of 6,600 households (17,123 individuals). The weighted sample provided the population estimates used in the analysis. Five repeated interviews were conducted with each household. The household survey provided detailed information on the United States health status, pattern of health care utilization, charges for services received, and methods of payments for 1980.^ The study provided evidence that economic factors influenced the use of prescription drugs, but the use was not highly responsive to family income and coinsurance for the levels examined. The elasticities for family income ranged from -.0002 to -.013 and coinsurance ranged from -.174 to -.108. Income has a greater influence on the likelihood of prescription drug use, and coinsurance rates had an impact on the amount spent on prescription drugs. The coinsurance effect was not examined for the likelihood of drug use due to limitations in the measurement of coinsurance. Health status appeared to overwhelm any effects which may be attributed to family income or coinsurance. The likelihood of prescription drug use was highly dependent on visits to medical providers. The volume of prescription drug use was highly dependent on the health status, age, and whether or not the individual saw a general practitioner. ^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^