Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Universal health care no guarantee of equity: Comparison of socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina

BMC Public Health20099:460

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-460

Received: 28 May 2009

Accepted: 14 December 2009

Published: 14 December 2009

Abstract

Background

In Australia there is a socioeconomic gradient in morbidity and mortality favouring socioeconomically advantaged people, much of which is accounted for by ischaemic heart disease. This study examines if Australia's universal health care system, with its mixed public/private funding and delivery model, may actually perpetuate this inequity. We do this by quantifying and comparing socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and patients with angina.

Methods

Using linked hospital and mortality data, we followed patients admitted to Western Australian hospitals with a first admission for AMI (n = 5539) or angina (n = 7401) in 2001-2003. An outcome event was the receipt, within a year, of a coronary procedure—angiography, angioplasty and/or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Socioeconomic status was assigned to each individual using an area-based measure, the SEIFA Index of Disadvantage. Multivariable proportional hazards regression was used to model the association between socioeconomic status and procedure rates, allowing for censoring and adjustment of multiple covariates. Mediating models examined the effect of private health insurance.

Results

In the AMI patient cohort, socioeconomic gradients were not evident except that disadvantaged women were more likely than advantaged women to undergo CABG. In contrast, in the angina patient group there were clear socioeconomic gradients for all procedures, favouring more advantaged patients. Compared with patients in the most disadvantaged quintile of socioeconomic status, patients in the least disadvantaged quintile were 11% (1-21%) more likely to receive angiography, 52% (29-80%) more likely to undergo angioplasty and 30% (3-55%) more likely to undergo CABG. Private health insurance explained some of the socioeconomic variation in rates.

Conclusions

Australia's universal health care system does not guarantee equity in the receipt of high technology health care for patients with ischaemic heart disease. While such a system might ensure equity for patients with AMI, where guidelines for treatment are relatively well established, this is not the case for angina patients, where health care may be less urgent and more discretionary.

Keywords

Coronary Artery Bypass GraftingAcute Myocardial InfarctionWestern AustraliaAcute Myocardial Infarction PatientIndex Admission

Background

In Australia, like elsewhere, there is a socioeconomic gradient in health, with mortality rates highest amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals.[1] Much of this inequality is attributable to causes that are potentially avoidable through effective and timely health care,[2]. the leading cause being ischaemic heart disease (IHD).[3] However, a common view is that the health care system plays little role in generating these health inequalities, particularly in countries like Australia with universal health insurance systems.[4, 5] Indeed, Australia's universal insurance scheme, Medicare, provides free treatment to patients treated in public hospitals and subsidises privately-delivered medical care, aiming 'to give all Australians, regardless of their personal circumstances, access to health care at an affordable cost or at no cost'.[6]

Nevertheless, as the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health reported recently, the opportunities for health systems to mitigate the harmful health effects of social stratification are all too often missed, and that in some instances they actually perpetuate inequity.[7] This may be true even in universal systems, particularly those where private insurance and direct private payments play some role in access to services.[8] Indeed, another underlying principle of Australia's universal system is to also allow '...choice for individuals through substantial private sector involvement in delivery and financing.'[6]. This 'choice' principle is somewhat at odds with the equity principle as it is essentially made available to those who can afford private health insurance (PHI), which covers some or all of the out-of-pocket cost of being treated as a private patient, in a public or private hospital. Around half of the population hold private insurance, 76% of households in the highest income quintile, and 23% in the lowest.[9] This, combined with non-system characteristics such as socioeconomic differentials in patient health literacy and expectations,[10, 11] suggests that those who are more socioeconomically advantaged may derive more benefit from the system than those who are less advantaged. This may be particularly true for care where there is more choice involved.

This study examines socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of high technology health care in patients with IHD in Australia, to examine the possibility that the health care system may actually perpetuate inequalities in IHD. Ischaemic heart disease is the leading cause of avoidable mortality in Australia[12] and the main contributor to the socioeconomic mortality gap.[3] Our main aim is to quantify socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures, including angiography and revascularisation procedures—angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)—which are known to improve survival in patients with IHD.[13] A second aim is to explore the hypothesis that inequalities will be greater where there is relatively more discretion around treatment and hence more scope for variation in provision of services.[14] We do this by examining inequalities separately in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a relatively well-defined clinical condition where the guidelines for intervention are now relatively well established, and in patients with angina, where this is less the case. We also explore inequalities in the angina patient group stratified by emergency and elective admission status as it is likely that emergency patients are largely presenting with unstable angina, where care is perhaps less discretionary compared with elective patients, who are more likely to have chronic stable angina. A third aim is to examine the extent to which private health care and private health insurance explain any inequality in receipt of procedures.

Methods

We used administrative hospital and death data from Western Australia (WA). Western Australia comprises a tenth of the total Australian population.[15] In 2004 (the last year of data for the present study), the population was 1.98 million, three-quarters of whom resided in metropolitan Perth.[16] The health system in WA is typical of Australia, however revascularisation rates differ from other states: age-adjusted CABG and total revascularisation rates for WA in 2000 (unadjusted for need) were the lowest of any state or territory, while PTCA rates were the second highest.[17]

Data were extracted from theHospital Morbidity Data System, which contains information on each hospital admission in WA, including sociodemographic characteristics, clinical diagnoses and medical and surgical procedures. The dataset covers all public and private hospitals, including acute care hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, records were extracted from the Mortality Data System, which records all deaths registered in WA. An established population-based record linkage system allows linking of records relating to individual patients both within and between these datasets.

For this study, an AMI case was a patient with an AMI index admission, defined as an admission to hospital between 2001 and 2003 with a principal or co-diagnosis of AMI (ICD-10 code: I2I) and with no previous admissions for AMI recorded for that patient (linked records were available from 1980 onward). For angina cases, an index admission was defined as an admission to hospital between 2001 and 2003 with a principal or co-diagnosis of angina (ICD-10 I20 - 99% of cases; 'other acute IHD' (I24)); or a primary diagnosis of chronic IHD (I25) with a secondary diagnosis of angina (I20), and no previous admissions for AMI. To select the final sample of cases, further exclusions were applied, as shown in Figure 1. The selection criteria and codes used are adapted from established methods.[14] The final sample sizes were 5539 for AMI and 7401 for angina.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Case selection.

The eleven procedure code and procedure date fields were used to identify the outcome event, which was receipt of a coronary procedure—angiography (ICD-10 codes 38215, 38218), PTCA (ICD-10 codes 35304, 35305, 35310) and/or CABG (ICD-10 codes 38497, 38500, 38503, 90201)—within 12 months of the index admission. The main explanatory variable, socioeconomic status (SES), was assigned to each individual using the SEIFA Index of Disadvantage, a census-based measure of area-level SES.[18] The Index was assigned at the level of the Collector District (CD), the smallest census unit available, using the 2001 version of the SEIFA. Where the CD information was missing (17% of cases), the CD of the admission closest in time to the index admission was used (4% of cases), and where this was unavailable postcode was used. A SEIFA score could be assigned to 97% of cases. After assigning a score, patients were classified into population-based quintiles of SES.

Non-SES variables in the hospital dataset that may be associated with both SES and receipt of coronary procedures and hence that may confound the inequality estimates were included in the adjusted analyses. These were: Age Group (ten-year age groups from 35-44 to 75-84 then 85 plus), Sex, Marital Status (single or married/defacto), Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) status (ATSI or non-ATSI), Country of Birth (Australia/New Zealand or other), Area of Residence (based on Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+) categories: major cities, inner regional and more remote), Hospital Area of index admission (metropolitan or rural), and Comorbidity. Comorbidity was measured using the modified Charlson Index, which is a weighted index based on diagnoses for all hospitalisations in the 12 months prior to the index admission.[19, 20] It is included as a potential confounder because lower SES is associated with higher comorbidity, and those with comorbidity are less likely to be offered a procedure.[21]

Two variables—Private Insurance (those holding private hospital insurance or who had hospital cover with the Department of Veteran's Affairs versus none) and Private Hospital (private hospital admission versus public)—were treated as mediating variables, as per the third aim of the study, i.e. to examine the extent to which these variables explain any of the SES variation in receipt of procedures.

Admission-date and procedure-date variables were used to calculate time to procedure. Where procedure dates were missing (11.6%), the admission date for the admission in which the procedure was performed was substituted for the procedure date. The admission-type data element describes whether the admission occurred on an emergency basis (admission should occur within 24 hours) or an elective basis (either from a waiting list or not).[22] In this study, the variable was dichotomised as either emergency or elective and was used to select AMI cases (i.e. emergency admission only, see Figure 1) and to stratify angina cases into emergency and elective admissions.

Analysis

Survival analysis methods were used to analyse the data, where survival is the time between the first day of the index admission and the date of a subsequent coronary procedure. Data were right-censored when the patient had a subsequent myocardial infarction, he/she died, or 12 months had elapsed since the index admission. For analysis of PTCA and CABG, censoring also occurred when the patient had the alternative procedure because once patients are offered PTCA they are no longer candidates for CABG, in the short-term at least, and vice-versa. Censoring was assumed to be uninformative.

To provide an initial summary of the data by sex and SES, the crude probability of receiving a procedure by 12 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the association between SES and procedure rates, allowing adjustment for age (Model 1), all confounders (Model 2) and confounding and mediating variables (Model 3). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for each SES quintile, with the most disadvantaged quintile as the reference group. The proportional hazards assumption was tested for all models by calculating Schoenfeld residuals. Where covariates displayed non-proportionality of hazards, a stratified form of the model was used.

For the AMI patients, multivariate Cox models were run separately for males and females. This is because the distribution of procedures by SES differed across males and females, with generally linear SES trends for males and U-shaped distributions for females (linear for CABG). These differences were confirmed statistically by modelling male and females together and finding the sex by SES interaction terms to be jointly significant (F-test of joint interaction terms, p < .01 for all models except CABG). For the angina patients, there were socioeconomic gradients for all procedures in both male and female patients, with the more advantaged patients more likely to receive procedures. That the inequality patterns were similar across the sexes was confirmed statistically (when male and females were modelled together the sex by SES interaction terms were not jointly significant: p-values for F-test of joint interaction terms: angiography, p = .325; PTCA, p = .567; CABG, p = .157; and CARP, p = .976.). Thus, to increase power and simplify presentation of results, males and females were modelled together with sex entered as a covariate in these models. STATA 9.0 statistical software was used for all analyses.[23]

The project was approved by The Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. The sample profile is similar across the AMI and angina groups with a few exceptions. The most notable are that the angina group were less likely to have comorbidity (26% versus 44%), more likely to have private insurance (45% compared to 35%) and more likely to be admitted to a private hospital for the index admission (38% compared to 20%).
Table 1

Sample characteristics for patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or angina, 2001-03

 

AMI patients

(n = 5539)

Angina patients

(n = 7401)

 

n

%

n

%

Patient

    

Sex

    

   Male

3637

65.7

4457

60.2

   Female

1902

34.3

2944

39.8

Age Groupa

    

   35-44

307

5.5

409

5.5

   45-54

889

16.1

1278

17.3

   55-64

1091

19.7

1815

24.5

   65-54

1247

22.5

2039

27.6

   75-84

1302

23.5

1455

19.7

   85 plus

703

12.7

405

5.5

SES

    

   Q1

1322

24.5

1645

22.8

   Q2

1227

22.8

1593

22.1

   Q3

1028

19.1

1441

20.0

   Q4

913

16.9

1248

17.3

   Q5

901

16.7

1295

17.9

Country of Birth

    

   Aus/NZ

3068

57.7

4337

60.8

   Not Aus/NZ

2247

42.3

2791

39.2

Aboriginal

    

   ATSI

189

3.4

209

2.8

   Not ATSI

5350

96.6

7192

97.2

Area of Residence

    

   Major cities

3980

73.8

5055

70.0

   Inner regional

636

11.8

1000

13.8

   More remote

777

14.4

1170

16.2

Marital Status

    

   Single

1932

35.9

2217

30.5

   Married/defacto

3444

64.1

5046

69.5

Comorbidity

    

   0

3113

56.2

5459

73.8

   1

1324

23.9

1227

16.6

   2

490

8.9

369

5.0

   3 or more

612

11.1

346

4.7

Private Insurance

    

   Yes

1920

34.7

3363

45.4

   No

3619

65.3

4038

54.6

Hospital

    

Hospital Area

    

   Metropolitan

4504

81.3

6332

85.6

   Rural

1035

18.7

1069

14.4

Private hospital

    

   No, Public

4440

80.2

4599

62.1

   Yes, Private

1099

19.8

2802

37.9

a Mean age of AMI patients = 67.6 (standard deviation 14.2, range 35-104) (Males: 64.3, SD: 13.6; Females: 73.8, SD: 13.1). Mean age of angina patients = 65.0 (standard deviation 12.46, range 35-103) (Males: 63.0, SD: 12.0; Females: 68.0, SD: 12.8).

Notes.

1. ATSI = Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

2. Comorbidity refers to modified Charlson Index score.

3. Missing data in AMI patients: SES, n = 148 (2.7%); country of birth, n = 224 (4.0%); area of residence, n = 146 (2.7%); marital status, n = 163 (2.9%); total no. of patients with missing data on at least one variable = 479 (8.7%; 9.2% in males, 7.7% in females). Missing data in angina patients: SES, n = 179 (2.4%); country of birth, n = 273 (3.7%); area of residence, n = 176 (2.4%); marital status, n = 138 (1.9%); total no. of patients with missing data on at least one variable = 554 (7.5%).

4. Among AMI patients, 99% of those living in major cities, 54% of inner regional patients and 20% of more remote patients were admitted to a metropolitan hospital for the index admission, with corresponding figures for angina patients being 99%, 75% and 41%. All coronary procedures were performed in metropolitan hospitals, with most performed in public hospitals--86% of those in AMI patients and 56% of those in angina patients. Over 90% of AMI patients first admitted to a public hospital also had their procedure in a public hospital, while of those first admitted to a private hospital, 33% had their angiography, 27% their PTCA and 49% their CABG in a public hospital.

Coronary procedures in AMI patients

The probabilities of having a procedure by socioeconomic quintile and sex for AMI patients are shown in Table 2 (males) and Table 3 (females). The overall probability of a male receiving an angiogram within one year of the index admission was 76% and of receiving any coronary artery revascularisation procedure (CARP) was 56%—46% for PTCA and 19% for CABG. Median times to procedure were 3, 3 and 19 days for angiography, PTCA and CABG, respectively (where day 1 is the day of admission), with 90% of procedures carried out within 42, 35 and 166 days, respectively. For females, the probability of angiography was 50%, while for CARP it was 30%—25% for PTCA and 8% for CABG. Median times to procedure were 3, 3 and 29 days for angiography, PTCA and CABG, respectively, with 90% of procedures carried out within 43, 33 and 213 days, respectively. Female procedure rates were significantly lower than male rates for all procedures after adjusting for age (p < .001 for all procedures).
Table 2

Probability of procedures (%) by socioeconomic quintile (Q) and hazard ratios for male patients with acute myocardial infarction

  

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

 

%

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

Angiography

          

   SES Q1

76.7

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

75.5

1.05

0.94-1.17

.423

1.01

0.90-1.14

.846

1.02

0.90-1.15

.744

   SES Q3

75.1

1.01

0.90-1.14

.895

0.98

0.86-1.11

.699

0.98

0.86-1.11

.739

   SES Q4

75.0

1.05

0.93-1.18

.448

0.94

0.82-1.07

.359

0.95

0.83-1.09

.456

   SES Q5

76.3

1.14

1.01-1.29

.041

0.95

0.83-1.09

.507

0.99

0.86-1.14

.886

Total

75.6

 

Trend

.080

 

Trend

.281

 

Trend

.542

PTCA

          

   SES Q1

43.3

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

46.6

1.15

0.99-1.33

.072

1.09

0.93-1.27

.281

1.11

0.95-1.29

.204

   SES Q3

44.2

1.08

0.93-1.27

.317

1.05

0.89-1.24

.579

1.03

0.88-1.22

.690

   SES Q4

49.9

1.27

1.08-1.49

.003

1.11

0.94-1.32

.207

1.13

0.96-1.34

.150

   SES Q5

48.4

1.30

1.10-1.52

.002

1.01

0.85-1.21

.879

1.04

0.87-1.24

.688

Total

46.1

 

Trend

.001

 

Trend

.755

 

Trend

.594

CABG

          

   SES Q1

21.0

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

18.5

0.95

0.71-1.26

.720

0.93

0.69-1.27

.660

0.93

0.69-1.26

.633

   SES Q3

20.9

1.03

0.77-1.37

.851

0.98

0.72-1.34

.922

0.96

0.70-1.31

.788

   SES Q4

17.0

0.85

0.61-1.18

.325

0.86

0.61-1.21

.374

0.82

0.58-1.16

.261

   SES Q5

17.2

0.97

0.70-1.35

.872

1.03

0.73-1.47

.850

0.97

0.67-1.39

.854

Total

19.0

 

Trend

.655

 

Trend

.874

 

Trend

.572

CARP

          

   SES Q1

54.7

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

55.7

1.10

0.96-1.25

.171

1.06

0.92-1.22

.392

1.07

0.93-1.23

.336

   SES Q3

55.3

1.07

0.93-1.24

.311

1.04

0.90-1.21

.562

1.03

0.89-1.19

.711

   SES Q4

57.7

1.17

1.02-1.35

.030

1.06

0.91-1.24

.422

1.06

0.91-1.24

.425

   SES Q5

56.6

1.22

1.06-1.41

.006

1.03

0.88-1.21

.688

1.03

0.88-1.21

.679

Total

55.7

 

Trend

.004

 

Trend

.672

 

Trend

.700

Notes.

1. PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CARP = coronary artery revascularisation procedure (PTCA or CABG).

2. SES Q1 is most disadvantaged quintile.

3. SES Q1, n = 853; SES Q2, n = 810; SES Q3, n = 685; SES Q4, n = 586; SES Q5, n = 597.

4. Cumulative probability of a procedure at one year was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

5. Because some patients had both CABG and PTCA on the same day, the % of patients undergoing first CARP procedures does not equal % PTCA plus % CABG.

6. Hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression and adjusted for age in Model 1, as well as other confounding variables (country of birth, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander status, marital status, comorbidities, area of residence and hospital area) in Model 2 and confounding and mediating variables (private insurance and private hospital) in Model 3.

Table 3

Probability of procedures (%) by socioeconomic quintile (Q) and hazard ratios for female patients with acute myocardial infarction

  

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

 

%

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

Angiography

          

   SES Q1

50.1

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

54.0

1.14

0.94-1.38

.172

1.17

0.96-1.43

.127

1.15

0.94-1.41

.162

   SES Q3

56.6

1.37

1.12-1.67

.002

1.37

1.11-1.69

.003

1.31

1.06-1.62

.011

   SES Q4

50.4

1.12

0.91-1.39

.278

1.05

0.84-1.31

.686

1.04

0.83-1.31

.731

   SES Q5

36.8

1.05

0.82-1.33

.700

0.91

0.71-1.17

.469

0.87

0.67-1.12

.274

Total

50.1

 

Trend

.375

 

Trend

.675

 

Trend

.463

PTCA

          

   SES Q1

21.5

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

30.0

1.43

1.09-1.88

.011

1.39

1.04-1.85

.026

1.38

1.03-1.84

.030

   SES Q3

28.7

1.47

1.10-1.96

.009

1.53

1.13-2.07

.006

1.50

1.11-2.04

.009

   SES Q4

27.4

1.39

1.03-1.88

.030

1.30

0.95-1.79

.103

1.37

0.99-1.89

.057

   SES Q5

18.3

1.20

0.85-1.70

.291

1.08

0.75-1.55

.680

1.03

0.71-1.49

.873

Total

25.3

 

Trend

.151

 

Trend

.456

 

Trend

.495

CABG

          

   SES Q1

11.4

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

9.1

0.73

0.44-1.23

.240

0.83

0.49-1.42

.497

0.83

0.49-1.42

.504

   SES Q3

9.7

0.83

0.49-1.41

.485

0.76

0.43-1.35

.345

0.76

0.43-1.35

.345

   SES Q4

5.8

0.54

0.29-1.02

.057

0.49

0.24-0.97

.041

0.49

0.24-1.00

.051

   SES Q5

4.3

0.52

0.25-1.09

.085

0.43

0.19-0.95

.037

0.43

0.19-0.97

.042

Total

8.4

 

Trend

.034

 

Trend

.009

 

Trend

.013

CARP

          

   SES Q1

29.6

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

35.6

1.24

0.97-1.58

.080

1.23

0.96-1.59

.107

1.22

0.95-1.58

.121

   SES Q3

34.7

1.29

1.00-1.67

.048

1.30

1.00-1.71

.052

1.27

0.97-1.70

.081

   SES Q4

31.4

1.17

0.90-1.53

.248

1.11

0.83-1.47

.484

1.17

0.88-1.57

.283

   SES Q5

21.1

1.00

0.73-1.37

.989

0.89

0.64-1.24

.506

0.85

0.85-1.19

.346

Total

30.1

 

Trend

.727

 

Trend

.716

 

Trend

.687

Notes.

1. PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CARP = coronary artery revascularisation procedure (PTCA or CABG).

2. SES Q1 is most disadvantaged quintile.

3. SES Q1, n = 469; SES Q2, n = 417; SES Q3, n = 343; SES Q4, n = 327; SES Q5, n = 304.

4. Cumulative probability of a procedure at one year was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

5. Because some patients had both CABG and PTCA on the same day, the % of patients undergoing first CARP procedures does not equal % PTCA plus % CABG.

6. Hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression and adjusted for age in Model 1, as well as other confounding variables (country of birth, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander status, marital status, comorbidities, area of residence and hospital area) in Model 2 and confounding and mediating variables (private insurance and private hospital) in Model 3.

Adjusting for age alone (Model 1, Table 2), angiography rates for males were slightly higher in Q5 than Q1 (HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.29) but the overall test for SES trend was not significant (p = .080). For PTCA (and CARP), but not CABG, there was a socioeconomic gradient in age-adjusted procedure rates favouring high SES patients (test for trend, p = .001, .004 and .655, for PTCA, CARP and CABG, respectively). However, after simultaneously adjusting for all of the confounding factors (Model 2, Table 2) there were no significant associations between SES and receipt of any of the coronary procedures. After entering the mediating variables—Private Insurance and Private Hospital—into the fully-adjusted models (Model 3, Table 2) there was virtually no change in the SES estimates for any of the procedures.

For females, those in the middle quintiles were the most likely to receive angiography and PTCA (or CARP), after adjusting for age alone (Model 1, Table 3) and multiple confounders (Model 2, Table 3). For CABG there was a significant socioeconomic gradient, with advantaged women less likely to receive this procedure than more disadvantaged women, even after adjustment for confounding (test for SES trend p = .009). As with the male patient group, when Private Insurance and Private Hospital were also entered into the model (Model 3, Table 3) there was virtually no change in the SES estimates for any of the procedures.

Coronary procedures in angina patients

The probability of a male patient presenting with angina receiving an angiogram within one year of the index admission was 77% and of receiving any revascularisation procedure (CARP) was 45%—28% for PTCA and 24% for CABG. Median times to procedure were 1 day (day of admission), 5 and 23 days for angiography, PTCA and CABG, respectively, with 90% of procedures carried out within 11, 43 and 112 days, respectively. For female patients with angina, the probability of angiography was 63%, while for CARP it was 24%—17% for PTCA and 10% for CABG. Median times to procedure were 1, 6 and 26 days for angiography, PTCA and CABG, respectively, with 90% of procedures carried out within 24, 65 and 119 days, respectively. Female procedure rates were consistently lower than male rates and remained so after adjusting for age (p < .001 for all procedures).

The probabilities of having a procedure by socioeconomic quintile, for males and females combined, are shown in Table 4. The probability of angiography was 71%, while for CARP it was 36%—23% for PTCA and 18% for CABG. After adjusting for age alone (Model 1, Table 4), the SES tests for trend were significant for all procedures, with procedure rates increasing with increasing SES. After adjusting for all confounding variables (Model 2, Table 4), patients in Q5 were 11% (95% CI: 1-21%) more likely to receive angiography and 41% (95% CI: 24-61%) more likely to receive a revascularisation procedure than those in Q1—they were 52% (95% CI: 29-80%) more likely to receive PTCA, and 30% (95% CI: 3-55%) more likely to undergo CABG.
Table 4

Probability of procedures (%) by socioeconomic quintile (Q) and hazard ratios for patients with angina

  

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

 

%

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

Angiography

          

   SES Q1

67.7

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

68.3

1.04

0.96-1.13

.361

1.02

0.94-1.11

.667

1.03

0.94-1.12

.550

   SES Q3

72.3

1.12

1.03-1.22

.008

1.05

0.96-1.14

.305

1.05

0.96-1.15

.287

   SES Q4

74.0

1.21

1.11-1.32

<.001

1.08

0.98-1.18

.118

1.08

0.98-1.18

.118

   SES Q5

75.0

1.27

1.16-1.38

<.001

1.11

1.01-1.21

.033

1.08

0.98-1.19

.131

Total

70.6

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

.017

 

Trend

.074

PTCA

          

   SES Q1

18.2

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

22.3

1.23

1.05-1.44

.009

1.24

1.05-1.46

.009

1.20

1.02-1.42

.029

   SES Q3

24.7

1.39

1.18-1.62

<.001

1.39

1.18-1.63

<.001

1.31

1.11-1.54

.002

   SES Q4

25.2

1.43

1.21-1.68

<.001

1.34

1.13-1.58

.001

1.23

1.03-1.47

.019

   SES Q5

28.3

1.65

1.41-1.93

<.001

1.52

1.29-1.80

<.001

1.32

1.10-1.57

.003

Total

23.4

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

.005

CABG

          

   SES Q1

15.3

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

17.8

1.16

0.96-1.40

.115

1.12

0.93-1.36

.228

1.11

0.92-1.35

.277

   SES Q3

17.3

1.12

0.92-1.35

.259

1.07

0.88-1.30

.493

1.04

0.86-1.28

.654

   SES Q4

20.4

1.36

1.13-1.65

.001

1.28

1.05-1.56

.014

1.20

0.99-1.47

.069

   SES Q5

20.5

1.38

1.14-1.66

.001

1.30

1.03-1.55

.024

1.14

0.93-1.42

.211

Total

17.7

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

.010

  

.144

CARP

          

   SES Q1

30.2

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

35.5

1.20

1.06-1.35

.003

1.18

1.05-1.34

.008

1.15

1.01-1.31

.025

   SES Q3

37.2

1.27

1.12-1.43

<.001

1.25

1.10-1.41

.001

1.19

1.05-1.35

.007

   SES Q4

39.9

1.40

1.24-1.59

<.001

1.30

1.15-1.49

<.001

1.20

1.06-1.38

.006

   SES Q5

42.4

1.53

1.36-1.73

<.001

1.41

1.24-1.61

<.001

1.22

1.07-1.90

.004

Total

36.4

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

<.001

 

Trend

.004

Notes.

1. PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CARP = coronary artery revascularisation procedure (PTCA or CABG).

2. SES Q1 is most disadvantaged quintile.

3. SES Q1, n = 1645; SES Q2, n = 1593; SES Q3, n = 1441; SES Q4, n = 1248; SES Q5, n = 1295.

4. Cumulative probability of a procedure at one year was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

5. Because some patients had both CABG and PTCA on the same day, the % of patients undergoing first CARP procedures does not equal % PTCA plus % CABG.

6. Hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression and adjusted for age in Model 1, as well as other confounding variables (country of birth, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander status, marital status, comorbidities, area of residence and hospital area) in Model 2 and confounding and mediating variables (private insurance and private hospital) in Model 3.

7. Proportional hazards assumption violated for CABG (p-value for global test of proportional hazards assumption = .006) in Model 2.

The extent to which private health care might explain the SES inequality in procedure rates was examined. Crude associations between SES and Private Insurance and Private Hospital showed significant linear trends, with higher SES individuals more likely to hold insurance and be admitted to a private hospital. Having private insurance and being admitted to a private hospital were both associated with an increased likelihood of having a procedure. When these private care mediating variables were entered into the fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards model (Model 3, Table 4), the HRs for SES were all reduced, particularly in SES quintile 5 for PTCA and CABG. However, on formal testing none of the comparisons of SES estimates across the models with and without these mediators reached significance at the .05 level.

We also examined the extent to which angiography may have been the rate-limiting step in revascularisation, by including only those patients who had had angiography. This resulted in a slight reduction in inequality estimates, but significant inequalities remained, particularly notable for PTCA.

Finally, in a sub-analysis we explored inequalities in the angina patient group stratified by emergency (n = 4072) and elective (n = 3329) admission status. Compared with emergency patients, the elective patients had a relatively higher proportion of high SES patients (21.2% versus 15.2% in Q5), holders of private insurance (59.5% versus 34.0%) and private hospital admissions (54.7% versus 24.1%). Approximately half of the elective group (43.2%) were admitted from a waiting list. The probabilities of having a procedure by socioeconomic quintile, along with adjusted HRs (Model 2), are shown in Table 5. Procedure rates were higher in the elective than the emergency group. The pattern of inequality in the emergency patients is similar to the total angina group, with angiography and PTCA rates increasing with increasing SES, although receipt of CABG was not significantly associated with SES in these patients. In the elective patients, linear tests for SES trend were significant for all procedures. In contrast to the emergency admissions group, however, higher SES patients were less likely than lower SES patients to receive an angiogram, yet they were more likely to receive a revascularisation procedure.
Table 5

Probability of procedures (%) by socioeconomic quintile (Q) and adjusted hazard ratios for patients with angina, stratified by emergency and elective admission

 

Emergency admissions

(n = 4072)

Elective admissions

(n = 3329)

 

%

HR

95% CI

p

%

HR

95% CI

p

Angiography

        

   SES Q1

50.3

1.00

-

-

95.3

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

50.2

1.03

0.90-1.17

.716

91.1

0.93

0.83-1.05

.249

   SES Q3

56.1

1.15

1.00-1.31

.045

92.8

0.94

0.83-1.05

.271

   SES Q4

56.6

1.14

0.99-1.31

.068

91.6

0.93

0.83-1.05

.233

   SES Q5

58.2

1.21

1.05-1.40

.010

89.4

0.87

0.77-0.98

.021

Total

53.3

 

Trend

003

91.8

 

Trend

.037

PTCA

        

   SES Q1

14.7

1.00

-

-

24.0

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

17.4

1.20

0.94 -1.52

.140

28.8

1.27

1.01-1.59

.038

   SES Q3

20.7

1.40

1.11-1.77

.005

30.0

1.34

1.06-1.67

.012

   SES Q4

16.8

1.05

0.81-1.37

.715

34.2

1.54

1.23-1.92

<.001

   SES Q5

23.1

1.49

1.16-1.92

.002

33.2

1.47

1.17-1.84

.001

Total

18.1

 

Trend

015

30.2

 

Trend

<.001

CABG

        

   SES Q1

9.3

1.00

-

-

25.5

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

10.8

1.17

0.85-1.62

.321

27.4

1.04

0.81-1.32

.776

   SES Q3

9.4

1.01

0.72-1.41

.962

28.2

1.09

0.85-1.39

.491

   SES Q4

11.1

1.28

0.90-1.81

.164

31.3

1.24

0.97-1.58

.085

   SES Q5

9.7

1.04

0.71-1.53

.841

30.4

1.20

0.94-1.54

.139

Total

9.8

 

Trend

608

28.6

 

Trend

.049

CARP

        

   SES Q1

22.0

1.00

-

-

43.1

1.00

-

-

   SES Q2

26.0

1.20

0.99-1.46

.059

47.4

1.15

0.98-1.36

.095

   SES Q3

27.9

1.28

1.05-1.55

.013

48.9

1.20

1.03-1.42

.032

   SES Q4

25.6

1.13

0.91-1.39

.271

54.2

1.37

1.16-1.62

<.001

   SES Q5

29.9

1.35

1.09-1.67

.005

53.0

1.34

1.13-1.58

.001

Total

25.7

 

Trend

.020

49.5

 

Trend

<.001

Notes.

1. PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CARP = coronary artery revascularisation procedure (PTCA or CABG).

2. SES Q1 is most disadvantaged quintile.

3. Emergency patients: SES Q1, n = 1008; SES Q2, n = 886; SES Q3, n = 805; SES Q4, n = 627; SES Q5, n = 596; Elective patients: SES Q1, n = 637; SES Q2, n = 707; SES Q3, n = 636; SES Q4, n = 621; SES Q5, n = 699.

4. Cumulative probability of a procedure at one year was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

5. Because some patients had both CABG and PTCA on the same day, the % of patients undergoing first CARP procedures does not equal % PTCA plus % CABG.

6. Hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression and adjusted for age, country of birth, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander status, marital status, comorbidities, area of residence and hospital area (Model 2).

7. Proportional hazards assumption violated for CABG in elective admissions model (p-value for global test of proportional hazards assumption = .028).

Discussion

The probability of receiving a coronary procedure in Western Australia varies by SES, with clear inequalities evident in patients admitted to hospital with angina but not in patients admitted for emergency AMI care. There were two exceptions in the findings, where socioeconomic gradients were reversed: in female patients admitted with AMI, more advantaged women were less likely to receive CABG than less advantaged women, and amongst elective angina patients, the advantaged women were less likely to have an angiogram. This may reflect true differences in need for the procedures, i.e., disadvantaged women may present with more severe disease. However, this cannot be ascertained from the study.

A strength of this study was the use of linked administrative data, which enabled individuals to be followed through time and data to be censored. Nevertheless there are limitations in using these data, which may have biased the results. First, several factors could have lead to either an underestimate or an overestimate of inequality. One is that while administrative data are highly reliable for ascertainment of coronary procedures, and the coding of AMI has been found to be reasonably reliable, this is not the case for angina—specificity and sensitivity is high but positive predictive value is relatively low.[24, 25] Whether this would bias the inequality estimates depends on whether such misclassification is differential with respect to SES, which is unknown. Another possible bias is that while we adjusted for 'need' by limiting the study population to only those patients admitted with AMI or angina, appropriateness of care is complex and it is not possible to capture this complexity. The extent and direction of the potential bias this creates is difficult to predict as the relationship between procedure rates and disease and other characteristics is not straightforward, particularly for angina.[26]

Second, comorbidity may not have been fully accounted for in the models as there is considerable under-reporting of comorbidities in hospital admissions data.[27, 28] This could have lead to an overestimation of inequality because lower SES patients are more likely to have comorbidities, and those with comorbidities are less likely to be offered a procedure.[21]

Third, several influences may have lead to an underestimation of inequality, including the use of area-level SES measures (rather than individual-level measures, which were not available), and the fact that only patients admitted to hospital were included—while this means all coronary procedures are captured, not all people with IHD who could potentially benefit from a coronary procedure are. This selection bias is less of a problem for AMI than for angina as most people who initially survive a heart attack present to hospital.[14] However, it is plausible that amongst those with angina, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are less likely to be admitted for investigation than the more advantaged. This is consistent with the study data that showed a relatively higher proportion of higher SES patients in the angina sample compared with the AMI sample.

There are few other studies with which the SES inequalities estimated for angina patients in this study can be directly compared. No previous Australian studies, and few international ones, have examined procedure rates in angina patients. Those that have, [2931] like the current study, found evidence of inequalities. However, unlike the current study, the one study that compared inequalities in procedure rates across AMI and angina patients (Finland, 1995-98), found they were similar across the two groups.[30]

With regard to AMI patients, earlier Australian studies found overall coronary procedure rates to be higher in private than public hospitals (Victoria, 1995-1997)[32] and that socioeconomically advantaged patients were more likely to undergo angioplasty, but not CABG, than disadvantaged patients (Queensland, 1998).[33] Inequalities in procedure rates were also found in a study of patients with IHD followed up in a clinical trial of lipid-lowering medication (1990-1997).[34] Findings have been similar in international studies, though some studies have found no inequalities in procedure rates.[3537] Most report inequalities in catheterised procedures (angiography and PTCA) and total revascularisation procedures, but not necessarily CABG. [29, 30, 3842] Notably, at the time these other studies were carried out, percutaneous procedure rates were not used widely in patients with AMI. For example, in the earlier Australian studies the probability of angioplasty was less than 10%, compared with nearly 50% in this study. Limitations in directly comparing the earlier and the current studies notwithstanding, the difference in findings are not inconsistent with the inverse equity hypothesis, which predicts that inequalities will appear when there is still a relatively low rate of use in the population (as in the earlier studies), but will decrease as the intervention becomes more commonly used (as in the current study).[43]

That there was no clear evidence of socioeconomic inequality in coronary procedure rates in patients seeking emergency care following AMI should not be surprising. In Australia there are now relatively clear guidelines for the use of these procedures in this patient population, utilisation is relatively high, and there is free access to public hospital care—an environment that should present few financial barriers to receiving care. In the same context, that inequality exists in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients presenting with angina is perhaps not unexpected. The use of procedures in this population is more discretionary, a large proportion of patients are admitted electively, and a relatively large proportion of procedures are performed in private hospitals.

One of the possible mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities amongst the angina patients—PHI—was explored in this study. As expected, higher SES patients were more likely to hold PHI and this increased the likelihood of receiving a procedure, although PHI did not fully account for the inequality in procedure rates. Notably, inequality was also evident in waiting times. Among the elective angina patients, lower SES patients were more likely to be admitted from a waiting list than higher SES patients (the percentages of patients admitted from a waiting list for Q1 (low SES) to Q5 (high SES), respectively, were: 64%, 51%, 44%, 36%, and 23%). This in turn was related to patients' PHI status, with nearly all (94%) patients without this insurance having to wait for the procedure, while the opposite was true for patients with private insurance (9% having to wait).

Patient and doctor characteristics, not examined in this study, may also explain the inequalities in procedure rates. First, there may be contraindications for receiving a procedure that are more prevalent in lower SES patients, but that were unmeasured in this study, including smoking,[44] obesity [4446] and late presentation to hospital.[47, 48] Second, disadvantaged patients may be less likely to see a specialist,[49] and specialists may be more likely than non-specialist doctors to recommend a coronary procedure.[50] Third, patients' preferences to seek care and undergo procedures may vary by SES—disadvantaged patients may have lower expectations[51] and be less willing to undergo a procedure[52] than more advantaged patients; and doctor's decisions may vary, either intentionally or unintentionally, depending on the social class of the patient, with higher SES patients at an advantage in this regard.[44, 51, 53]

That inequalities appeared for more discretionary care raises the question whether or not the higher procedure rates in advantaged individuals represent overuse, or whether they represent underuse in disadvantaged individuals. While these two possibilities have different implications for health inequalities, either state can be considered inequitable. In the case of underuse, disadvantaged individuals are not receiving health care from which they could benefit. In the case of over-use, this poses an overall problem for equity in a system with limited resources: where increases in health spending are increasingly going to more discretionary care, this leaves those with a greater capacity to benefit without, or having to wait longer for, much needed care, while the relatively 'well off' perhaps make more marginal gains.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that universal health care systems such as Australia's, with mixed public/private funding and delivery allowing for 'choice' in heath care, may actually perpetuate health inequity. While such systems might ensure equity for patients with AMI, where guidelines for treatment are relatively well established, this is not the case for care of patients with angina, where high technology health care may be less urgent and more discretionary.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of the following people who provided valuable advice on this project: Dr Darryl McGill, Cardiologist, The Canberra Hospital; Prof. Jim Butler, Director, Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health, Australian National University; and Dr Rachel Moorin, Associate Professor, University of Western Australia. We would also like to acknowledge the Data Linkage Branch of the Western Australia Health Department who provided the data for this project.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
(2)
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

References

  1. Draper G, Turrell G, Oldenburg B: Health inequalities in Australia: mortality. Health inequalities monitoring series No. 1. AIHW cat. no. PHE 55. 2004, Brisbane and Canberra: Queensland University of Technology and the Australian Institute of Health and WelfareGoogle Scholar
  2. Korda RJ, Butler JR, Clements MS, Kunitz SJ: Differential impacts of health care in Australia: trend analysis of socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable mortality. Int J Epidemiol. 2007, 36 (1): 157-165. 10.1093/ije/dyl282.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Page A, Tobias M, Glover J, Wright C, Hertzel D, Fisher E: Australian and New Zealand atlas of avoidable mortality. 2006, Adelaide: PHIDU, University of AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  4. Pincus T, Esther R, DeWalt DA, Callahan LF: Social conditions and self-management are more powerful determinants of health than access to care. Ann Intern Med. 1998, 129 (5): 406-411.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Marmot MG: Understanding social inequalities in health. Perspect Biol Med. 2003, 46 (3 Suppl): S9-23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Medicare Australia. . [http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/about/whatwedo/health-system/index.jsp]
  7. World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health: Challenging inequity through health systems: Final report of the health systems knowledge network. 2007, WHOGoogle Scholar
  8. van Doorslaer E, Masseria C, Koolman X, for the OHERG: Inequalities in access to medical care by income in developed countries. CMAJ. 2006, 174 (2): 177-183.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Private health insurance: a snapshot, 2004-05. ABS cat. no. 4815.0.55.001. . 2006, Canberra: ABSGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenberg JM: Sociologic influences on decision-making by clinicians. Ann Intern Med. 1979, 90 (6): 957-964.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon A, Le Grand J: Is greater patient choice consistent with equity? The case of the English NHS. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006, 11 (3): 162-166. 10.1258/135581906777641668.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Korda RJ, Butler JRG: Effect of healthcare on mortality: Trends in avoidable mortality in Australia and comparisons with Western Europe. Public Health. 2006, 120 (2): 95-105. 10.1016/j.puhe.2005.07.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, Critchley JA, Labarthe DR, Kottke TE, Giles WH, Capewell S: Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980-2000. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356 (23): 2388-2398. 10.1056/NEJMsa053935.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Moise P, Jacobzone S, the ARD-IHD Experts Group: OECD study of cross-national differences in the treatment, costs and outcomes of ischaemic heart disease. OECD health working papers No. 3. 2003, Paris: OECDView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Australian demographic statistics, June 2006. ABS cat. no. 3101.0. . 2006, Canberra: ABSGoogle Scholar
  16. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Western Australia at a glance. ABS cat. no. 1306.5. . 2006, Canberra: ABSGoogle Scholar
  17. AIHW, Davies J: Coronary revascularisation in Australia, 2000. Bulletin no. 7. AIHW cat. no. AUS 35. . 2003, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and WelfareGoogle Scholar
  18. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Technical paper. Census of population and housing: socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2001. ABS cat. no. 2039.0.55.001. 2004, Canberra: ABS, 2005:Google Scholar
  19. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA: Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992, 45 (6): 613-619. 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA: New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57 (12): 1288-1294. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Scott IA, Duke AB, Darwin IC, Harvey KH, Jones MA: Variations in indicated care of patients with acute coronary syndromes in Queensland hospitals. Med J Aust. 2005, 182 (7): 325-330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW): Australian hospital statistics 2003-04. AIHW cat. no. HSE 37. . 2005, Canberra: AIHW (Health Services Series no. 23)Google Scholar
  23. StataCorp: Stata statitsical software: release 9. 2005, College Station, TX: StataCorp LPGoogle Scholar
  24. Heckbert SR, Kooperberg C, Safford MM, Psaty BM, Hsia J, McTiernan A, Gaziano JM, Frishman WH, Curb JD: Comparison of self-report, hospital discharge codes, and adjudication of cardiovascular events in the women's health initiative. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 160 (12): 1152-1158.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Davies J, Senes S: Coronary angioplasty in Australia 1999. Cardiovascular disease series no. 19. AIHW cat. no. CVD 19. 2002, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and National Heart Foundation of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. Calvin JE, Klein LW, VandenBerg BJ, Meyer P, Ramirez-Morgen LM, Parrillo JE: Clinical predictors easily obtained at presentation predict resource utilization in unstable angina. Am Heart J. 1998, 136 (3): 373-381. 10.1016/S0002-8703(98)70209-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Powell H, Lim LLY, Heller RF: Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease: an Australian perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001, 54 (7): 687-693. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00364-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Preen DB, Holman CDAJ, Lawrence DM, Baynham NJ, Semmens JB: Hospital chart review provided more accurate comorbidity information than data from a general practitioner survey or an administrative database. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57 (12): 1295-1304. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Payne N, Saul C: Variations in use of cardiology services in a health authority: comparison of coronary artery revascularisation rates with prevalence of angina and coronary mortality. BMJ. 1997, 314 (7076): 257-261.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hetemaa T, Manderbacka K, Reunanen A, Koskinen S, Keskimaki I: Socioeconomic inequities in invasive cardiac procedures among patients with incident angina pectoris or myocardial infarction. Scand J Public Health. 2006, 34 (2): 116-123. 10.1080/14034940510032248.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sekhri N, Timmis A, Chen R, Junghans C, Walsh N, Zaman J, Eldridge S, Hemingway H, Feder G: Inequity of access to investigation and effect on clinical outcomes: prognostic study of coronary angiography for suspected stable angina pectoris. BMJ. 2008, 336 (7652): 1058-1061. 10.1136/bmj.39534.571042.BE.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Robertson IK, Richardson JR: Coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularisation rates in public and private hospital patients after acute myocardial infarction. Med J Aust. 2000, 173 (6): 291-295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Coory M, Scott IA, Baade P: Differential effect of socioeconomic status on rates of invasive coronary procedures across the public and private sectors in Queensland, Australia. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002, 56 (3): 233-234. 10.1136/jech.56.3.233.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Stewart RA, North FM, Sharples KJ, Simes RJ, Tonkin AM, White HD: Differences in cardiovascular mortality between Australia and New Zealand according to socioeconomic status: findings from the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study. N Z Med J. 2008, 121 (1269): 11-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Britton A, Shipley M, Marmot M, Hemingway H: Does access to cardiac investigation and treatment contribute to social and ethnic differences in coronary heart disease? Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2004, 329 (7461): 318-10.1136/bmj.38156.690150.AE.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Pilote L, Tu JV, Humphries K, Behouli H, Belisle P, Austin PC, Joseph L: Socioeconomic status, access to health care, and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in Canada's universal health care system. Med Care. 2007, 45 (7): 638-646. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180536779.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Chang WC, Kaul P, Westerhout CM, Graham MM, Armstrong PW: Effects of socioeconomic status on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 2007, 120 (1): 33-39. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.05.056.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris RW, Whincup PH, Papacosta O, Walker M, Thomson A: Inequalities in coronary revascularisation during the 1990s: evidence from the British regional heart study. Heart. 2005, 91 (5): 635-640. 10.1136/hrt.2004.037507.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Alter DA, Naylor CD, Austin P, Tu JV: Effects of socioeconomic status on access to invasive cardiac procedures and on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999, 341 (18): 1359-1367. 10.1056/NEJM199910283411806.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pilote L, Joseph L, Belisle P, Penrod J: Universal health insurance coverage does not eliminate inequities in access to cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2003, 146 (6): 1030-1037. 10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00448-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Philbin EF, McCullough PA, DiSalvo TG, Dec GW, Jenkins PL, Weaver WD: Socioeconomic status is an important determinant of the use of invasive procedures after acute myocardial infarction in New York State. Circulation. 2000, 102 (19 Suppl 3): III107-115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hetemaa T, Keskimaki I, Salomaa V, Mahonen M, Manderbacka K, Koskinen S: Socioeconomic inequities in invasive cardiac procedures after first myocardial infarction in Finland in 1995. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57 (3): 301-308. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.07.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, Tomasi E: Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet. 2000, 356 (9235): 1093-1098. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02741-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kee F, Gaffney B, Canavan C, Little J, McConnell W, Telford AM, Watson JD: Is choice of general practitioner important for patients having coronary artery investigations?. Qual Health Care. 1994, 3 (1): 17-22. 10.1136/qshc.3.1.17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Goldberg RJ, Cui J, Olendzki B, Spencer F, Yarzebski J, Lessard D, Gore J: Excess body weight, clinical profile, management practices, and hospital prognosis in men and women after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006, 151 (6): 1297-1304. 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.09.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yancy WS, Olsen MK, Curtis LH, Schulman KA, Cuffe MS, Oddone EZ: Variations in coronary procedure utilization depending on body mass index. Arch Intern Med. 2005, 165 (12): 1381-1387. 10.1001/archinte.165.12.1381.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. McKinley S, Moser DK, Dracup K: Treatment-seeking behavior for acute myocardial infarction symptoms in North America and Australia. Heart Lung. 2000, 29 (4): 237-247. 10.1067/mhl.2000.106940.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Dracup K, McKinley SM, Moser DK: Australian patients' delay in response to heart attack symptoms. Med J Aust. 1997, 166 (5): 233-236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Korda RJ, Banks E, Clements MS, Young AF: Is inequity undermining Australia's 'universal' health care system? Socio-economic inequalities in the use of specialist medical and non-medical ambulatory health care. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009, 33 (5): 458-465. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00430.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Go AS, Rao RK, Dauterman KW, Massie BM: A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med. 2000, 108 (3): 216-226. 10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00430-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Richards HM, Reid ME, Watt GC: Socioeconomic variations in responses to chest pain: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002, 324 (7349): 1308-10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1308.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Schecter AD, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ, McKee G, Hoffeld D, Myers M, Velez R, Duran J, Schulman SP, Chandra NG, Ford DE: Influence of gender, race, and education on patient preferences and receipt of cardiac catheterizations among coronary care unit patients. Am J Cardiol. 1996, 78 (9): 996-1001. 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00523-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Barnhart JM, Cohen O, Wright N, Wylie-Rosett J: Can non-medical factors contribute to disparities in coronary heart disease treatments?. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006, 17 (3): 559-574. 10.1353/hpu.2006.0097.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/460/prepub

Copyright

© Korda et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement