Perceived and reported access to the general practitioner: an international comparison of universal access and mixed private/public systems.

Timely and convenient access to primary healthcare is essential for the health of the population as delays can incur additional health and financial costs. Access to health care is under increasing scrutiny as part of the drive to contain escalating costs, while attempting to maintain equity in service provision. The objective was to compare primary care services in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to report on perceived and reported access to GP services in universal access and mixed private/public systems. A questionnaire study was performed in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Patients of 20 practices in the ROI and NI were contacted (n = 22,796). Main outcome measures were overall satisfaction and the access to GP services. Individual responses and scale scores were derived using the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (G-PAQ). The response rate was 52% (n = 11,870). Overall satisfaction with GP practices was higher in ROI than in NI (84.2% and 80.9% respectively). Access scores were higher in ROI than in NI (69.2% and 57.0% respectively) Less than 1 in 10 patients in ROI waited two or more working days to see a doctor of choice (8.1%) compared to almost half (45.0%) in NI. In NI overall satisfaction decreased as practice size increased; 82.8%, 80.4%, and 75.8%. In both systems, in large practices, accessibility is reduced when compared to smaller practices. The faster access to GP services in ROI may be due to the deterrent effect of the consultation charge freeing up services although, as it is the poorest and sickest who are deterred by the charge this improved accessibility may come at a significant cost in terms of equity. The underlying concern for policy makers centres around provision of equitable services.

Unfunded pension liabilities and sponsoring firm credit risk: an international analysis of corporate bond spreads

This paper tests empirically whether pension information derived by corporate pension accounting disclosures is priced in corporate bond spreads. The model represents a hybrid of more traditional accounting ratio-based models of credit risk and structural models of bond spreads initiated by Merton (1974). The model is fitted to 5 years of data from 2002 to 2006 featuring companies from the US and Europe. The paper finds that while unfunded pension liabilities are priced in the overall sample, they are not priced as aggressively as traditional leverage. Furthermore, an extended model shows that the pension–credit risk relation is most evident in the US and Germany, where unfunded pension liabilities are priced more aggressively than traditional forms of leverage. No pension–credit risk relation is found in the other countries sampled, notably the UK, Netherlands and France.