title: Delivery of primary health care to persons who are socio-economically disadvantaged: does the organizational delivery model matter?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  As health systems evolve, it is essential to evaluate their impact on the delivery of health services to socially disadvantaged populations. We evaluated the delivery of primary health services for different socio-economic groups and assessed the performance of different organizational models in terms of equality of health care delivery in Ontario, Canada.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross sectional study of 5,361 patients receiving care from primary care practices using Capitation, Salaried or Fee-For-Service remuneration models. We assessed self-reported health status of patients, visit duration, number of visits per year, quality of health service delivery, and quality of health promotion. We used multi-level regressions to study service delivery across socio-economic groups and within each delivery model. Identified disparities were further analysed using a t-test to determine the impact of service delivery model on equity.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Low income individuals were more likely to be women, unemployed, recent immigrants, and in poorer health. These individuals were overrepresented in the Salaried model, reported more visits/year across all models, and tended to report longer visits in the Salaried model. Measures of primary care services generally did not differ significantly between low and higher income/education individuals; when they did, the difference favoured better service delivery for at-risk groups. At-risk patients in the Salaried model were somewhat more likely to report health promotion activities than patients from Capitation and Fee-For-Service models. At-risk patients from Capitation models reported a smaller increase in the number of additional clinic visits/year than Fee-For-Service and Salaried models. At-risk patients reported better first contact accessibility than their non-at-risk counterparts in the Fee-For-Service model only.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Primary care service measures did not differ significantly across socio-economic status or primary care delivery models. In Ontario, capitation-based remuneration is age and sex adjusted only. Patients of low socio-economic status had fewer additional visits compared to those with high socio-economic status under the Capitation model. This raises the concern that Capitation may not support the provision of additional care for more vulnerable groups. Regions undertaking primary care model reforms need to consider the potential impact of the changes on the more vulnerable populations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. sdahrouge@bruyere.org.
authors.forename: Simone
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dahrouge
authors.forename: William
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Hogg
authors.forename: Natalie
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Ward
authors.forename: Meltem
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tuna
authors.forename: Rose Anne
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Devlin
authors.forename: Elizabeth
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Kristjansson
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Tugwell
authors.forename: Kevin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Pottie
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006293:Health Promotion; D006304:Health Status; D054625:Healthcare Disparities; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017146:Models, Organizational; D009864:Ontario; D011203:Poverty; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D035862:Vulnerable Populations