Advertisement

Reasons for unmet needs for health care: the role of social capital and social support in some western EU countries

Abstract

This paper focuses on the demand side factors that determine access to health care and analyses the issues of unmet needs for health care and the reasons thereof in western EU countries. A probit model is estimated from a sample of the whole population, accounting for the possibility of individual selection in unmet needs for health care (UN) (selection equation). Expanded probit models (including the inverse Mills ratio) are then used on the reasons for unmet needs (RUN) with social capital and social support as determinants and using the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions dataset from 2006. In the RUN equations, the findings show that females, large households, people with low income and financial constraints, the unemployed and those in poor health have a higher probability of declaring unmet needs due to economic costs. Additionally, people in tertiary education, those with high income and the employed have a higher probability of not visiting a doctor when needed due to time constraints. Furthermore, the frequency of contact with friends and the ability to ask for help are correlated with a lower probability of unmet needs due to economic costs, while the frequency of contact with relatives is correlated with a lower probability of unmet needs due to time constraints and distance. However, the ability to ask for help is also correlated with a higher probability of not having medical care due to time constraints and the wait-and-see approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Meetings with relatives and friends do not necessarily provide an individual with instrumental, emotional and informational support. Whether kinship and friendship have this function is likely to depend on a number of personal, social, cultural and contextual circumstances. Moreover, using interactions with relatives and friends as a measure of social support may lead to a tautology: identifying social support with relatives and friends would necessarily find that these meetings by definition provide support. On the other hand, empirically testing the correlation between meetings with relatives and friends and unmet needs basically means assessing whether social interactions with relatives and friends also work as a source of social support.

References

  1. Aday, L. A., & Andersen, R. M. (1974). A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Services Research, 9, 208–220.

  2. Ahs, A., & Westerling, R. (2006). Health care utilization among persons who are unemployed or outside the labour force. Health Policy, 78, 178–193.

  3. Allin, S., Grignon, M., & Le Grand, J. (2010). Subjective unmet need and utilization of health care services in Canada: What are the equity implications? Social Science and Medicine, 70, 465–472.

  4. Allin, S., & Masseria, C. (2009). Unmet needs as an indicator of health care access. Eurohealth, 15(3), 7–9.

  5. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brisette, I., & Seeman, T. (2000). From social integration to health. Social Science and Medicine, 51(6), 843e857.

  6. Bryant, T., Leaver, C., & Dunn, J. (2009). Unmet healthcare need, gender, and health inequalities in Canada. Health Policy, 91, 24–32.

  7. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  8. Carr, W., & Wolfe, S. (1976). Unmet needs as sociomedical indicators. International Journal of Health Services, 6(3), 417–430.

  9. Cavalieri, M. (2013). Geographical variation of unmet medical needs in Italy: a multivariate logistic regression analysis. International Journal of Health Geographics, 12(27), 1–11.

  10. Chaupain-Guillot, S., & Guillot, O. (2015). Health system characteristics and unmet care needs in Europe: an analysis based on EU-SILC data. European Journal of Health Economics, 16(7), 781–796.

  11. Chen, J., & Hou, F. (2002). Unmet needs for health care, Statistics Canada. Health Reports, 13(2), 23–34.

  12. Connolly, S., & Wren, M.-A. (2017). Unmet healthcare needs in Ireland: Analysis using the EU-SILC survey. Health Policy, 121, 434–441.

  13. D’Hombres, R., Rocco, L., Shurcke, M., & Mckee, M. (2010). Does social capital determine health? Evidence from eight transition countries. Health Economics, 19, 56–74.

  14. Derose, K. P., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Social capital and health care access. A systematic review, Medical Care Research and Review, 66(3), 272–306.

  15. Elstad, J. I. (2016). Income inequality and foregone medical care in Europe during The Great Recession: multilevel analyses of EU-SILC surveys 2008–2013. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(101), 1–11.

  16. Eurostat (2019). Self-reported needs for medical examination by sex, age, main reason declared and income quintile. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_silc_08&lang=en. Accessed January 21, 2019.

  17. Fiorillo, D., & Sabatini, F. (2011). Quality and quantity: the role of social interactions in self-reported individual health. Social Science and Medicine, 73(11), 1644–1652.

  18. Fiorillo, D., & Sabatini, F. (2015). Structural social capital and health in Italy. Economics & Human Biology, 117(2), 129–142.

  19. Fjaer, E. L., Stornes, P., Borisova, L. V., McNamara, C. L., & Elkemo, T. (2017). Subjective perceptions of unmet need for health care in Europe among social group: Findings from the European social survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. European Journal of Public Health, 27, 82–89.

  20. Greenberg, G. A., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2003). Managerial and environmental factors in the continuity of mental health care access institutions. Psychiatric Services, 54(4), 529–534.

  21. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

  22. Gulliford, M., Figueroa-Munoz, J., Morgan, M., Hughes, D., Gibson, B., Beech, R., et al. (2002). What doesʹ access to health careʹ mean? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7(3), 186–188.

  23. Hendryx, M. S., Ahern, M. M., Lovrich, N. P., & McCurdy, A. H. (2002). Access to health care and community social capital. Health Services Research, 37(1), 87–103.

  24. Herr, M., Arvieu, J.-J., Aegerter, P., Robine, J. M., & Ankri, J. (2013). Unmet health care needs of older people: prevalence and predictors in a French cross-sectional survey. European Journal of Public Health, 24(5), 808–813.

  25. House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83–108). Orlando: Academic Press.

  26. House, J. S., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.

  27. Israel, S. (2016). How social policies can improve financial accessibility of healthcare: a multi-level analysis of unmet medical need in European countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(41), 1–14.

  28. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Glass, R. (1999). Social capital and self-rated health: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491–1498.

  29. Kawachi, I., Kim, D., Coutts, A., & Subramanian, S. V. (2004). Commentary: Reconciling the three accounts of social capital. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 682–690.

  30. Kumar, S., Calvo, R., Avendano, M., Sivaramakrishnan, K., & Berkman, L. F. (2012). Social support, volunteering and health around the world: Cross-national evidence from 139 countries. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 696–706.

  31. Lee, S. Y., Kim, C. W., Kangt, J. H., & Seo, N. K. (2015). Unmet healthcare needs depending on employment status. Health Policy, 119, 899–906.

  32. Lindstrom, M., Axen, E., Lindstrom, C., Moghaddassi, M., & Merlo, J. (2006). Social capital and administrative contextual determinants of lack of access to a regular doctor: A multilevel analysis in southern Sweden. Health Policy, 79(2–3), 153–164.

  33. Litaker, D., & Love, T. E. (2005). Health care resource allocation and individuals’ health care needs: examining the degree of fit. Health Policy, 73, 183–193.

  34. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited dependent and quantitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  35. McKee, M., Balabanova, D., Basu, S., Ricciardi, W., & Stuckler, D. (2013). Universal health coverage: a quest for all countries but under threat. Value in Health, 16, S39–S45.

  36. OECD. (2007). Health care resources and utilization, in Health at a Glance 2007. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  37. Pappa, E., Kontodimopoulos, N., Papadopoulos, A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2013). Investigating unmet health needs in primary health care services in a representative sample of the Greek population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 2017–2027.

  38. Perry, M., Williams, R. L., Wallerstein, N., & Waitzakin, H. (2008). Social capital and health care experiences among low-income individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 330–336.

  39. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  40. Reeves, A., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2015). The attack on universal health coverage in Europe: recession, austerity and unmet needs. European Journal of Public Health, 25(3), 364–365.

  41. Song, L. (2011). Social capital and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(4), 478–492.

  42. Stuckler, D., Feighl, A. B., Basen, S., McKee, M. (2010). The political economy of universal health coverage. Background paper for global symposium on health systems research, Montreux, Switzerland.

  43. Thomson, S., Figueras, J., Evetovits, T., Jowett, M., Mladovsky, P., Maresso, A., Cylus, J., Karanikolos, M., Kluge, H. (2014). Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe: Impact and implications for policy. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (Policy Summary 12).

  44. Toth, F. (2016). L’universalismo sanitario sulla carta e nella realtà. Politiche Sociali, 3, 421–440.

  45. Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, S54–S66.

  46. Uphoff, N. (1999). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215–249). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  47. van Doorslaer, E., Koolman, X., & Jones, A. (2004). Explaining income-related inequalities in doctor utilization in Europe. Health Economics, 13, 629–647.

  48. Wan, T., & Lin, B. (2003). Social capital, health status, and health services use among older women in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Research in the Sociology of Health Care Delivery, 21, 163–180.

  49. World Health Organization. (2005). Sustainable health financing, universal coverage and social health insurance. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We especially thank the Reviewer for constructive comments, which have helped to improve the paper in a number of ways. We also thank all participants at the XXX Annual Conference of the Italian Society of Public Economics (September 19–21, 2018, University of Padova) for useful suggestions and comments.

Funding

Funding was provided by Università degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope (Grant No. Ricerca individuale 2015–2017).

Author information

Correspondence to Damiano Fiorillo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the unmet needs (UN) equation

With regard to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (Table 6), gender and marital status are not statistically significant. The same applies to household size and country of origin.

The probability of reporting unmet needs is negatively and significantly correlated with age. The youngest age groups show a positive correlation with the probability of reporting unmet needs. By contrast, older people present a negative association with the likelihood of declaring unmet needs when they feel they need examination or treatment (respectively, by 0.6, 1.1 and 1.6%.

The probability of not visiting a doctor when needed is weaker among individuals with higher education than individuals with lower education. Moreover, individuals with tertiary education have a higher likelihood of declaring unmet needs than those with secondary education. Following the literature a possible explanation is that individuals with tertiary education have greater time constraints which may lead them to postpone medical visits and treatment (Chaupain-Guillot and Guillot 2015).

The likelihood of forgoing medical examination or treatment is correlated with the economic situation of the household. Individuals living in higher-income households with home ownership are less likely to report unmet medical treatment. Individuals who have arrears on utility bills and are unable to cope with unexpected financial expenses present, respectively, a 4.5 and 2.4% higher probability of declaring unmet needs for health care. Hence, a poor economic situation in the household emerges as a burden in healthcare access. Furthermore, the likelihood of declaring unmet healthcare needs is also positively correlated with the employed, the unemployed and the inactive. While for those employed a feasible explanation of unmet needs may be that they have “time constraints”, for the unemployed unmet needs may be due to the economic burden (Lee et al. 2015). Finally, the probability of declaring unmet needs has a strong positive relationship with poor perceived health. Individuals who perceive that they are in poor or very poor health are more likely to declare unmet medical needs (the opposite holds for individuals who perceive good and very good health). Having a chronic condition is also positively correlated with the probability of experiencing an unmet medical need, as is the fact of being hampered in daily activities because of health problems. These results reveal that less healthy people have multiple or recurrent care needs but they might decide to forgo or delay some examinations or treatment due to the economic burden involved.

Finally, looking at the country-fixed effect, taking Germany as a reference category, we show that France and Portugal have a higher probability of unmet needs (6.3 and 4.7%, respectively), while the Netherlands and Greece a lower likelihood (4.2 and 4.1%, respectively).

Appendix 2: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the reasons for unmet needs (RUN) equation

With regard to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (Table 7), “female” is found positively associated with Expensive and negatively related to Wait and see. This shows that women are more likely to experience unmet needs due to cost but they are less willing to wait and see when they need to visit a doctor. Marital status is negatively correlated with Distance, indicating that a spouse may provide marital support when needed. Age is shown negatively associated with the likelihood of declaring unmet needs due to cost (70 years and over) and time availability (50 years and over). These results seem to indicate that older people are less likely to face cost and time barriers than younger people.

Household size is found to be positively associated to Expensive and negatively correlated with Distance. These findings appear to indicate that living in a large family generates two opposite effects: it increases the household costs of health care and it decreases the distance-related costs for accessing health care. Being born in EU countries is found to have a positive correlation with Expensive and Distance while a negative relationship with Wait and see. Thus, individuals born in EU countries are more likely to declare unmet needs due to cost and distance but less likely due to personal attitudes.

Tertiary education and household income are both found negatively correlated with Expensive and positively associated to No time. Hence, people with more individual and household economic resources are less likely to experience unmet needs due to economic constraints. However, more time spent on procuring economic resources means less time available for seeing a doctor when needed. These explanations also seem to support results on the employed, which are negatively related to Expensive and positively to No time. Furthermore, tertiary education and home ownership are found negatively related, respectively, to Distance and Expensive. Financial constraints, i.e. utility arrears and unexpected expenses, are found positively correlated with the probability of unmet needs due to costs and negatively related to the likelihood of not visiting a doctor when needed due to the lack of time available. Being unemployed is shown to be positively correlated with a higher likelihood of declaring unmet needs due to cost and lack of time and with a smaller probability of unmet needs due to proximity. “Inactive” is found to be associated with Distance and No time, respectively, with negative and positive sign.

In terms of health status, self-perceived poor health and chronic conditions are associated with a higher probability of having unmet needs due to economic cost. Self-perceived poor health is also related to a lower probability of declaring unmet needs due to lack of time and personal attributes. The last result is also found for chronic conditions. Finally, limitations in ADLs are shown to be associated with a higher likelihood of needs being unmet due to a wait-and-see approach.

The findings indicating that females, low income, financial constraints, the unemployed and those with poor health status are more likely to declare unmet needs due to cost (accessibility) are in line with previous studies (Cavalieri 2013; Fjaer et al. 2017).

Looking at country-fixed effects, taking Germany as a reference category, Spain and the UK have, respectively, a 27.2 and 25.0% lower probability of unmet needs due to economic cost. Denmark and Spain show a higher probability of declaring unmet needs due to time constraints (respectively 58.1 and 22.7%) while the UK exhibits less probability (0.70%). Portugal and Italy present a lower likelihood of unmet needs due to the wait-and-see approach (16.9 and 16.4%, respectively).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiorillo, D. Reasons for unmet needs for health care: the role of social capital and social support in some western EU countries. Int J Health Econ Manag. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-019-09271-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Unmet needs for healthcare
  • Reasons for unmet needs
  • Social capital
  • Social support
  • EU Western countries
  • EU-SILC data
  • Heckman selection model

JEL Classification

  • C35
  • I12
  • I18
  • Z1