Sujin Kim1
Boyoung Jeon2*- 1Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, Sejong, Republic of Korea
- 2Department of Health and Medical Information, Myongji College, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Objectives: This study examines the inequality between people with and without disabilities regarding unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization.
Methods: We used the Korea Health Panel of 2016–2018; the final analytical observations were 43,512, including 6.95% of persons with disabilities. We examined the differences in contributors to the two dependent variables and decomposed the observed differences into explained and unexplained components using the Oaxaca-Blinder approach.
Results: Unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalizations were 5.6% p (15.36% vs. 9.76%) and 0.68% p (1.82% vs. 0.61%), respectively, higher in people with disabilities than in those without, of which 48% and 35% were due to characteristics that the individual variables cannot explain. Decomposition of the distributional effect showed that sex, age, and chronic disease significantly increased disparities for unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization. Socioeconomic factors such as income level and Medical aid significantly increased the disabled–non-disabled disparities for unmet healthcare needs.
Conclusion: Socioeconomic conditions increased the disparities, but around 35%–48% of the disparities in unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization were due to unexplained factors, such as environmental barriers.
Introduction
One billion people, 15% of the world’s population, experience some form of disability (1). Disability-inclusive development is increasing globally; for example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities promotes the full integration of persons with disabilities in societies. Additionally, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development clearly states that disability cannot be a reason for the lack of access to development programming or human rights (1). In this regard, there have been many efforts to achieve “better health for all people with disabilities” worldwide; the WHO global disability action plan seeks to remove barriers and improve access to health services and programs as one of their objectives between 2014 and 2021 (2). The health targets for people with disabilities were included in Healthy People 2000 and later expanded in Healthy People 2010 and Healthy People 2020 (3). However, little research has investigated disability disparities within the broader health disparities field; there are calls to reduce the disparities and include people with disabilities in the research area (3, 4).
People with disabilities have a higher prevalence of chronic diseases and are less likely to receive preventive care than persons without disabilities (5). Mainly, people with multiple types of limitations are more likely to have problems receiving clinical preventive services, such as dental checkups and cancer screenings (6), and have poor health outcomes, such as chronic conditions and health status (7).
In Korea, the government established a national registration system for the disabled population according to the “Welfare of People with Disability Act” in 1988. Based on the system, the government provides welfare benefits for people with disabilities according to the level of legal disability, including 15 types of disabilities-physical disabilities, brain lesion disorders, visual impairment, hearing impairment, language disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autistic disorders, mental disabilities, renal impairment, cardiac impairment, respiratory impairment, hepatic impairment, facial disfigurement, intestinal or urinary fistula, and epilepsy disorder (8). As of 2020, the system had 2.63 million, accounting for 5.1% of the entire population (9). According to previous literature, people with disabilities are more likely to have chronic diseases. For example, 84.3% of people with disabilities have chronic conditions, 1.8 times higher than those without disabilities (46.5%) in 2017 (10). In addition, people with disabilities are physically inactive, have a higher proportion of osteoporosis, and have an impaired quality of life compared to those without disabilities (11). While they are less likely to receive preventive screening services, e.g., cervical cancer screenings (11, 12) or gastric cancer screenings (13).
Meanwhile, they are more likely to use healthcare services; for example, they have a higher length of stay for inpatient care (14), and their healthcare expenditure is four times higher than persons without disabilities (5,375 thousand KRW vs. 1,298 thousand KRW) in 2017 (10).
Although people with disabilities spend more resources on their healthcare, they meet the problems of access to healthcare. According to the concept of “Patient Centered Access to Healthcare,” there are key three outcomes: reduction of unmet health care needs, avoidable hospitalization, and emergency department admission (15, 16). Increasing access to primary care services is known to be associated with an improvement of these three outcomes, complementarily (15). Among them, there are considerable problems in unmet health care needs and avoidable hospitalization among persons with disabilities. For example, persons with disabilities, such as those with brain and physical impairments, experience more unmet healthcare needs (17, 18), and those with intellectual and developmental disabilities are more likely to be hospitalized due to diabetes-related ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (19). As a result, they experience poorer health outcomes, e.g., a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and higher mortality rates than those without disabilities (20).
Previous literature proposed a conceptual framework for understanding healthcare disparities experienced by individuals with disabilities, conceptualizing how a discrepancy between personal and environmental factors may cause limited access to healthcare and quality (21). For example, people with disabilities are socio-economically disadvantaged, have lower income and education levels, and have challenges participating in the workplace (22, 23). Their lower socioeconomic status intensifies the barriers to access to healthcare services, as they are vulnerable to cost-related difficulties, for example, a lack of health insurance or living near the poverty level without medical aid (18, 24–26).
In addition, they experience overlapped barriers because of disabilities, which are not usually observed or measured in surveys. Such barriers may include difficulties in public transportation (18, 27), lack of accommodations specific to their particular needs, and difficulties finding adequate medical professionals who welcome people with disabilities (28). There are also unmeasurable factors in personal characteristics, e.g., psychological distance to physician meetings (29) and health literacy problems (30), which determine the attitudes toward healthcare utilization or preventive behaviors. Therefore, we need to pay attention to the role of unobserved factors, which may cause healthcare disparities and can be further worsened by the presence of disability (31).
Despite the well-known disparities in access to healthcare by persons with disabilities, there is little evidence about the relative contribution of observed and unobserved characteristics that explain the gaps between persons with and without disabilities. The extent to which socioeconomic differences can explain the disparities between disabled and non-disabled individuals is unclear. Among the outcomes of access to healthcare, this study focused on reduction of avoidable hospitalization and unmet health care needs (15). To our knowledge, none has distinguished between explained disparities (using covariates) and unexplained disparities (as discrimination) among the total inequalities on “unmet healthcare needs” and “preventable hospitalization” respectively. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the inequality between people with and without disabilities on unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization, and measuring the explained and unexplained disparities in the two dependent variables using the Oaxaca-Blinder approach.
Methods
Data Source and Participants
We obtained data from the Korea Health Panel (KHP), a nationally representative longitudinal study operated by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs and the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea since 2008. Sample households were selected using a two-stage cluster method from the population census data of Statistics Korea. Surveys were conducted annually on all eligible household members using the computer-assisted personal interviewing technique. The KHP provides information on health conditions, unmet needs, healthcare utilization, socioeconomic characteristics, and demographic characteristics and has been used to analyze unmet needs and healthcare utilization (32, 33).
The KHP survey questions for defining the disability are as following: “Has (name of household member) been assessed for disability?”, and if a respondent answered “Yes, assessed as having a disability + registration,” the respondent has been defined as “persons with disability.” The disability registration system is operated by Ministry of Health and Welfare and Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and the definition of persons with disabilities refer to persons who have been severely restricted in daily life or social life for a long time due to physical or mental disabilities: Among them, physical disability refers to major external body function disorders and internal organ disorders, and mental disability refers to a disability caused by a developmental disability or mental illness (34).
The baseline sample included 7,866 households and 24,616 household members in 2008, and about 2,500 households were added in 2013 to compensate for panel attrition (35). The sample included 6,821 households and 18,870 household members in 2016, 6,497 households and 17,453 household members in 2017, and 6,493 households and 17,160 household members in 2018.
This study used data from individuals aged 18 years or older from the 2016–2018 KHP. Our sample was 43,517, including 3,027 (7%) observations with disability and 40,490 (93%) observations without disabilities. The analytical observations for unmet needs were 43,512 because the dependent variable of unmet healthcare needs has a missing value for five observations - three observations without disability and two observations with disability. We received institutional review board exemptions from the Public Institutional Bioethics Committee designated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (IRB No. P01-202107-22-021).
Measures
Dependent Variables
Our analyses used unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization as dependent variables. Unmet healthcare needs were measured as “yes” replies to the question, “Have you ever missed seeing a doctor or getting a medical checkup that was necessary during the last year?” referring to previous literature (32, 33).
We measured preventable hospitalization as hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC)-related diseases. ACSC has been used to assess the quality of primary and community care, that is, access to appropriate primary care that could prevent the need for admission to hospitals. In Korea, Jeong et al. proposed Korean ACSCs (36). They consulted a panel of Korean clinicians with the original US version of 22 ACSCs to identify Korean ACSCs and proposed a total of 13 conditions for the Korean ACSCs (KACSCs) (36). It includes grand mal status epilepticus, convulsions, severe ear, nose, and throat infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, asthma, congestive heart failure, hypertension, angina, cellulitis, diabetes, hypoglycemia, gastroenteritis, and kidney/urinary tract infections (36). While KHP provided three diagnoses related to hospitalization, we classified the cases where the primary disease was consistent with ACSC-related diseases as hospitalizations due to ACSC, referring to the previous study (36).
Explanatory Variables
We included demographic and socioeconomic factors and health conditions in the analysis. Demographic factors included age, age squared, and sex. Socioeconomic factors included the existence of a spouse (yes or no), household income (low, middle, or high), an education level (middle school, high school, or university or above), employment status (employed or unemployed), residence (metropolitan or rural areas), and healthcare coverage (National Health Insurance (NHI) or Medical aid). Income groups were categorized into three groups, lower than 50%, 50%–150%, and higher than 150% of the median of equivalized household income. The medical aid program is a public aid scheme to secure access to health services for the low-income population. Health conditions included having chronic diseases (0, 1, 2, or 3+) and year dummy variables (2016, 2017, 2018).
Statistical Analysis
We performed a descriptive analysis of dependent and explanatory variables for people with and without disabilities. We examined differences in contributors to the incidence of unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization for adults with or without disabilities, respectively, using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) methods, that is, the linear probability model (LPM), referring to previous studies (37, 38). When using the logit or probit model, the estimation in the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition depends on reference groups. For binary outcomes, a convenient alternative might be to use the Oaxaca-Blinder approach with the linear probability model (39). Thus, we interpreted the results from the linear probability model while showing both results from LPM and the logit model. With LPM, we interpreted
Note: w: with disability, wo: without disability.
Results
General Description
Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics of disability status. The proportion of unmet needs was 15.36% and 9.76% for persons with and without disabilities, respectively. The proportion of preventable hospitalizations was 1.82% and 0.61% for persons with and without disabilities, respectively. In addition, persons with disabilities had more disadvantaged characteristics, such as a higher proportion of older individuals, no spouses, low education levels, unemployment, low income, chronic illness, being Medical aid recipients, and living in small cities compared to those without disabilities. These differences in characteristics of persons without disabilities may explain the gaps in unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization, which were 5.6% points and 1.21% points, respectively (Table 1).
TABLE 1. Distribution of dependent and explanatory variables for people with and without disability (Republic of Korea. 2016–2018).
Unmet Healthcare Needs for People With and Without Disability
The first and second columns of Table 2 show the regression results on unmet healthcare needs. For persons without disabilities, the rate of unmet healthcare needs of male persons without disabilities was approximately 2.1% lower than that of female persons without disabilities. Compared to the no-spouse group, those with spouses had a lower rate of unmet healthcare needs, about 1.7%, and those employed had unmet healthcare needs at a rate of approximately 4.1% lower. When the income level is high, the rate of unmet healthcare needs also decreases. When the income level is in the middle or high class, the unmet healthcare experience rate is reduced compared to those with low income. The unmet healthcare experience rate of Medical aid beneficiaries was about 6.7% higher than that of NHI enrollees. For persons with disabilities, the unmet healthcare needs of male persons with disabilities were approximately 4.0% lower than that of female persons with disabilities. When the income level is middle or high, the rate of unmet healthcare needs also decreases. The coefficients of sex and income level were greater for persons with disabilities than those without disabilities (Table 2).
TABLE 2. Regressions on unmet healthcare needs for people with and without disability (Republic of Korea. 2016–2018).
Table 3 shows the results of decomposing the disabled–non-disabled gap using descriptive statistics and regression analysis results. The disabled–non-disabled disparities in unmet healthcare needs due to characteristic effects, that is, distributional effect, was 2.92% point, accounting for 52% of the total gap. If people with and without disabilities had the same characteristics, the unmet need for medical care for those without disabilities would have increased by about 2.92% from 9.76%. Detailed decomposition of the distributional effect showed that sex, age, working status, income level, Medical aid, and chronic disease significantly increased the disabled–non-disabled disparities. For example, low-income persons were more concentrated in the disabled group (Table 1) and were more likely to experience unmet needs (Table 2), which led to an increase in the disabled–non-disabled disparities (Table 3). However, sex and working status appeared to decrease the disabled–non-disabled disparities. That is, sex led to a decrease in disabled–non-disabled disparities (Table 3) since disabled groups had a higher rate of male participants (Table 1) who were less likely to experience unmet healthcare needs than female participants (Table 2). Results from logit models were similar to those from LPM.
TABLE 3. Decomposition of gap in unmet healthcare needs for people with and without disability (Republic of Korea. 2016–2018).
Preventable Hospitalization for People With and Without Disability
Table 4 shows the regression analysis results on preventable hospitalization for people with and without disabilities. As for persons without disabilities, the preventable hospitalization rate was higher in males than females by approximately 0.3%. Those with three or more chronic diseases were more likely to experience preventable hospitalization by 1.1%. For persons with disabilities, the preventable hospitalization rate of male persons with disabilities was higher than that of female persons with disabilities by approximately 1.5%. People not living in metropolitan and with three or more chronic diseases were more likely to experience preventable hospitalization by approximately 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The coefficients of sex and chronic disease were higher for persons with disabilities than those without disabilities (Table 4).
TABLE 4. Regressions on preventable hospitalization for people with and without disability (Republic of Korea. 2016–2018).
Table 5 shows the results of decomposing the disabled–non-disabled gap using descriptive statistics and regression analysis results. The disabled–non-disabled disparities in preventable hospitalization due to characteristic effects, distributional effect, was 0.79% point, accounting for 65% of the total gap. In other words, if people with and without disabilities had the same characteristics, the preventable hospitalization of people without disabilities would have increased by about 0.79% from 0.61%. Detailed decomposition of the distributional effect showed that sex, age, and chronic disease significantly increased the disabled–non-disabled disparities (Table 5). For example, persons with chronic disease were more concentrated in the disabled group (Table 1), while they were more likely to experience preventable hospitalization (Table 4).
TABLE 5. Decomposition of gap in preventable hospitalization for people with and without disability (Republic of Korea. 2016–2018).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the explained disparities (as covariates) and unexplained disparities (as discrimination) about “unmet healthcare needs” and “preventable hospitalization” between persons with and without disabilities in South Korea. Overall, persons with disabilities experienced a higher rate of unmet healthcare needs (15.36% vs. 9.76%) and preventable hospitalization (1.82% vs. 0.61%). The decomposition results showed that different characteristics between persons with and without disabilities accounted for 48% and 35% of the total gap for unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization, respectively. It means that more than half of the difference in unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization between persons with and without disabilities were unexplained components, which are not explained by the observed differences using the explanatory variables. To ensure the reliability of the analysis results, we showed the both of LPM and logit models, and we interpreted the results from the LPM because the results were not different regardless of using LPM and the logit model.
The current study showed that the gap was 5.6% for unmet healthcare needs due to disability, and the explanatory variables explained 52% of the total gap. The detailed decomposition showed that the gap increased with income level and Medical aid. The proportion of low-income and Medical aid was much higher among persons with disabilities than those without disabilities. Low income and Medical aid may intensify the higher probability of experiencing unmet healthcare needs among persons with disabilities because even relatively small expenses can be catastrophic to poor households with members with disabilities (43). People with low family income and high healthcare needs due to a disability may experience high medical expenditure burdens (43, 44), which may reduce their visits to adequate healthcare services and increase the experience of unmet healthcare needs. The results were similar to those of a previous study that found socioeconomic status to be one of the main factors of healthcare disparities between persons with and without disabilities (21).
The detailed decomposition in the present study showed that the gap was decreased by sex and working status, while a previous study found that currently employed groups are less likely to receive necessary healthcare services due to “lack of time” (45), regardless of disability status. Our results showed that a higher proportion of working people among those without disabilities than those with disabilities reduced the disability-related gap.
Our finding showed that the unexplained component (coefficient effect) accounted for 48% of the gap. Diverse factors can cause the unexplained component of the gap in unmet healthcare needs, e.g., environmental barriers, such as health delivery system factors (such as the geographic location of services, transportation), support and relationships (such as caregivers and immediate family members), provider access factors (such as accessibility of buildings and equipment, availability of specialists) (21), and communication skills of healthcare providers for persons with disabilities (46). In addition, there are unobserved factors in psychological needs (29) and personal health literacy (30), which affect the attitudes to hospital visits or preventive treatment, that are not measurable using survey questionnaires.
When the dependent variable was “preventable hospitalizations,” the result showed that the gap was 1.21% between persons with and without disabilities, and the explanatory variables, such as sex, age, chronic disease, and Medical aid, explained 65% of the total gap. When considering the effect of age and chronic conditions, the average age of persons with disabilities was 61.3, which is about 15 years higher than those without disabilities, and chronic conditions were more prevalent among persons with disabilities than those without disabilities. That is, persons with disabilities are composed of an older population, and many have disability-related secondary or age-related chronic conditions (47). According to previous literature, the prevalence of hypertension is 2.7 times higher, diabetes is 2.8 times higher, and cerebrovascular disease is about five times higher than that of people without disabilities (10). Since these diseases are ACSC-related, the probability of preventable hospitalization could be higher among persons with disabilities.
When persons with disabilities live in rural areas, compared to those living in metropolitans, they are more likely to experience preventable hospitalization (Table 4). Our result reflects the accessibility problems in rural areas, as persons with disabilities may experience inadequate transportation and lower personal aid while at a higher risk of social exclusion (48, 49). Thus, the accumulated problems would have increased the probability of experiencing preventable hospitalization in rural areas.
The unexplained component (coefficient effect) accounted for 35% of the total gap between persons with and without disabilities for preventable hospitalization. The unobserved factors may be individual factors, such as secondary conditions or functional limitations, environmental factors, such as difficulties in finding a good quality of primary care, or the limited timeliness of care (12, 13, 21). Persons with disabilities may also be at increased risk of preventable hospitalization because they experience difficulties in the daily management of ACSC. In addition, the related information, including symptoms and prevention, is not available in accessible formats such as print materials in Braille, sign language interpretation, audio provision, or graphics (1). Meanwhile, there was no significant effect of unmet healthcare needs on preventable hospitalization, for people with and without disabilities (Supplementary Material).
In South Korea, the government introduced several policies to reduce the gap between persons with and without disabilities. First, the “Act on Guarantee of Right to Health and Access to Medical Services for Persons with Disabilities” was enacted in 2015 and implemented in December 2017 (50). The Act is to improve the health of persons with disabilities by providing for matters concerning support to guarantee the right to health, establish a healthcare system, and guarantee access to healthcare for persons with disabilities. Based on this Act, a “pilot program of primary care physician system for persons with disabilities” has been implemented to improve continuous and comprehensive care (51). Additionally, to improve general health checkups more safely and conveniently, “disability-friendly medical examination institutions” have been implemented since 2018 (51). The above programs may reduce the unexplainable components of healthcare access disparities. Thus, further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of these new policy efforts.
There were several limitations of this study. First, the original sample retention rate was 53.8% since the KHP started in 2008 (72.3% for the additional sampling of 2013) for the 2016–2018 data (35). It may be susceptible to response bias, reducing the representativeness of the results. Second, the proportion of persons with disability (6.95%) was higher than that of national statistics (4.9% of the adults aged 20 years or older and 5.1% of the whole population, which includes only the disability registration system of Ministry of Health and Welfare) (9) because our study included all persons with disability in disability registration system both of Ministry of Health and Welfare and Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs. Additionally, we did not distinguish the types and severity of the disability, as the sample size was insufficient to analyze the differences by disability type. Further studies need to consider the disability characteristics and the difference among persons with disability.
Conclusion
This study compared unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalizations between persons with and without disabilities and divided the gap into explained and unexplainable components. The unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalizations were 5.6% and 1.21% higher in people with than without disabilities, respectively, of which 48% and 35% were due to characteristics that observed variables could not explain. Individual and environmental characteristics such as physical accessibility, having a caregiver to accompany them to a hospital, lack of appropriate primary care services, and invisible discrimination can be the possible components of the gap. This study is meaningful in showing the impact of invisible factors and the explainable personal characteristics in our society that causes the gaps in unmet healthcare needs and preventable hospitalization between persons with and without disabilities.
Author Contributions
SK: study conceptualization and design, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing. BJ: study conceptualization and design, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.ssph-journal.org/articles/10.3389/ijph.2023.1605312/full#supplementary-material
References
1.World Bank. Disability Inclusion. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability (Last Updatedaccessed MarJuly 191, 202120212021).
2.WHO. WHO Global Disability Action Plan 2014-2021. Better Health for All People with Disability. World Health Organization (2015).
3. Goode, TD, Carter-Pokras, OD, Horner-Johnson, W, and Yee, S. Parallel Tracks: Reflections on the Need for Collaborative Health Disparities Research on Race/ethnicity and Disability. Med Care (2014) 52(10 0 3):S3–S8. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000201
4. McDonald, KE, and Raymaker, DM. Paradigm Shifts in Disability and Health: Toward More Ethical Public Health Research. Am J Public Health (2013) 103(12):2165–73. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301286
5. Reichard, A, Stolzle, H, and Fox, MH. Health Disparities Among Adults with Physical Disabilities or Cognitive Limitations Compared to Individuals with No Disabilities in the United States. Disabil Health J (2011) 4(2):59–67. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2010.05.003
6. Horner-Johnson, W, Dobbertin, K, Lee, JC, Andresen, EM, Epo, D, and Disparities, H. Disparities in Health Care Access and Receipt of Preventive Services by Disability Type: Analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Health Serv Res (2014) 49(6):1980–99. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12195
7. Horner-Johnson, W, Dobbertin, K, Lee, JC, and Andresen, EM Expert Panel on Disability and Health Disparities. Disparities in Chronic Conditions and Health Status by Type of Disability. Disabil Health J (2013) 6(4):280–6. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.04.006
9. Statistics Korea, . Statistics for People with Disabilities. Available from: https://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2768 (accessed July 1, 20212021).
10.National Rehabilitation Center. Healthcare Statistics of Persons with Disabilities. Seoul, Republic of Korea (2021).
11. Ko, KD, Lee, KY, Cho, B, Park, MS, Son, KY, Ha, JH, et al. Disparities in Health-Risk Behaviors, Preventive Health Care Utilizations, and Chronic Health Conditions for People with Disabilities: the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil (2011) 92(8):1230–7. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.03.004
12. Shin, DW, Lee, J-W, Jung, JH, Han, K, Kim, SY, Choi, KS, et al. Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women with Disabilities: a National Database Study in South Korea. J Clin Oncol (2018) 36(27):2778–86. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.77.7912
13. Kim, Y, Shin, DW, Kim, HW, Jung, JH, Han, K, Cho, IY, et al. Disparities in Gastric Cancer Screening Among People with Disabilities: a National Registry-Linkage Study in South Korea. Gastric Cancer (2020) 23(3):497–509. doi:10.1007/s10120-019-01017-8
14. Jeon, B, Kwon, S, and Kim, H. Health Care Utilization by People with Disabilities: a Longitudinal Analysis of the Korea Welfare Panel Study (KoWePS). Disabil Health J (2015) 8(3):353–62. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.01.001
15. Khanassov, V, Pluye, P, Descoteaux, S, Haggerty, JL, Russell, G, Gunn, J, et al. Organizational Interventions Improving Access to Community-Based Primary Health Care for Vulnerable Populations: a Scoping Review. Int J equity Health (2016) 15(1):168–34. doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0459-9
16. Levesque, J-F, Harris, MF, and Russell, G. Patient-centred Access to Health Care: Conceptualising Access at the Interface of Health Systems and Populations. Int J equity Health (2013) 12(1):18–9. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-12-18
17. Hwang, B, Chun, S-M, Park, J-H, and Shin, H-I. Unmet Healthcare Needs in People with Disabilities: Comparison with the General Population in Korea. Ann Rehabil Med (2011) 35(5):627–35. doi:10.5535/arm.2011.35.5.627
18. Lee, J-E, Kim, H-R, and Shin, H-I. Accessibility of Medical Services for Persons with Disabilities: Comparison with the General Population in Korea. Disabil Rehabil (2014) 36(20):1728–34. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.867368
19. Balogh, R, Lake, J, Lin, E, Wilton, A, and Lunsky, Y. Disparities in Diabetes Prevalence and Preventable Hospitalizations in People with Intellectual and Developmental Disability: a Population-based Study. Diabetic Med (2015) 32(2):235–42. doi:10.1111/dme.12573
20. Son, KY, Kim, SH, Sunwoo, S, Lee, J-Y, Lim, S, and Kim, YS. Association between Disability and Cardiovascular Event and Mortality: A Nationwide Representative Longitudinal Study in Korea. Plos one (2020) 15(7):e0236665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236665
21. Meade, MA, Mahmoudi, E, and Lee, S-Y. The Intersection of Disability and Healthcare Disparities: a Conceptual Framework. Disabil Rehabil (2015) 37(7):632–41. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.938176
22. Kavanagh, AM, Krnjacki, L, Aitken, Z, LaMontagne, AD, Beer, A, Baker, E, et al. Intersections between Disability, Type of Impairment, Gender and Socio-Economic Disadvantage in a Nationally Representative Sample of 33,101 Working-Aged Australians. Disabil Health J (2015) 8(2):191–9. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.08.008
23. Bonaccio, S, Connelly, CE, Gellatly, IR, Jetha, A, and Ginis, KAM. The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence. J Business Psychol (2020) 35(2):135–58. doi:10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5
24. Mahmoudi, E, and Meade, MA. Disparities in Access to Health Care Among Adults with Physical Disabilities: Analysis of a Representative National Sample for a Ten-Year Period. Disabil Health J (2015) 8(2):182–90. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.08.007
25. Miller, NA, Kirk, A, Kaiser, MJ, and Glos, L. The Relation between Health Insurance and Health Care Disparities Among Adults with Disabilities. Am J Public Health (2014) 104(3):e85–e93. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301478
26. Reichard, A, Stransky, M, Phillips, K, McClain, M, and Drum, C. Prevalence and Reasons for Delaying and Foregoing Necessary Care by the Presence and Type of Disability Among Working-Age Adults. Disabil Health J (2017) 10(1):39–47. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.08.001
27. Bezyak, JL, Sabella, S, Hammel, J, McDonald, K, Jones, RA, and Barton, D. Community Participation and Public Transportation Barriers Experienced by People with Disabilities. Disabil Rehabil (2020) 42(23):3275–83. doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1590469
28. Iezzoni, LI, and Agaronnik, ND. Healthcare Disparities for Individuals with Disability: Informing the Practice. Disability as Diversity. Springer (2020). p. 15–31.
29. Park, Y. Measurement and Redefinition of Unmet Healthcare Need: A People-Centered View. Seoul National University (2019).
30. Lee, H, Piao, Z, Na, H, Jeon, B, and Han, E. A Systematic Review on Health Literacy of Visual Impaired Peopl. Korean J Health Econ Pol (2022) 28(3):51–78.
31. Horner-Johnson, W. Disability Intersectionality, and Inequity: Life at the Margins. In: Public Health Perspectives on Disability. Springer (2021). p. 91–105.
32. Jang, SY, Seon, JY, and Oh, IH. Influencing Factors of Transportation Costs Regarding Healthcare Service Utilization in Korea. J Korean Med Sci (2020) 35(35):e290. doi:10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e290
33. Park, S, Kim, B, and Kim, S. Poverty and Working Status in Changes of Unmet Health Care Need in Old Age. Health Policy (2016) 120(6):638–45. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.03.004
35.Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, National Health Insurance Service. Korea Health Panel Survey. Available from: https://www.khp.re.kr:444/web/survey/results.do) 2022.
36. Jeong, K-J, Kim, J, Kang, H-Y, and Shin, E. Hospital Admission Rates for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions in South Korea: Could it Be Used as an Indicator for Measuring Efficiency of Healthcare Utilization? Health Pol Manage (2016) 26(1):4–11. doi:10.4332/kjhpa.2016.26.1.4
37. Edoka, I, McPake, B, Ensor, T, Amara, R, and Edem-Hotah, J. Changes in Catastrophic Health Expenditure in post-conflict Sierra Leone: an Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition Analysis. Int J Equity Health (2017) 16(1):166. doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0661-4
38. Vujicic, M, and Nasseh, K. A Decade in Dental Care Utilization Among Adults and Children (2001-2010). Health Serv Res (2014) 49(2):460–80. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12130
39. Jann, B. The Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models. Stata J (2008) 8(4):453–79. doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800401
40. Oaxaca, R. Male-female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets. Int Econ Rev (1973) 14:693–709. doi:10.2307/2525981
41. Blinder, AS. Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates. J Hum Resour (1973) 8:436–55. doi:10.2307/144855
43. Lee, J-E, Shin, H-I, Do, YK, and Yang, EJ. Catastrophic Health Expenditures for Households with Disabled Members: Evidence from the Korean Health Panel. J Korean Med Sci (2016) 31(3):336–44. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.3.336
44. Jeon, B, Noguchi, H, Kwon, S, Ito, T, and Tamiya, N. Disability, Poverty, and Role of the Basic Livelihood Security System on Health Services Utilization Among the Elderly in South Korea. Soc Sci Med (2017) 178:175–83. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.013
45. Lee, S-Y, Kim, C-W, Kang, J-H, and Seo, N-K. Unmet Healthcare Needs Depending on Employment Status. Health Policy (2015) 119(7):899–906. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.007
46. Jeon, B, Lee, M, and Ahn, E. The Effect of Having a Usual Source of Care on Patient-Centered Communication Among Persons with Disabilities. Health Pol Manage (2021) 31(4):518–30.
47.Campbell ML, and Putnam M, editors. Reducing the Shared burden of Chronic Conditions Among Persons Aging with Disability and Older Adults in the United States through Bridging Aging and Disability. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (2017). Healthcare.
48. Adams, RM, Eisenman, DP, and Glik, D. Community Advantage and Individual Self-Efficacy Promote Disaster Preparedness: A Multilevel Model Among Persons with Disabilities. Int J Environ Res Public Health (2019) 16(15):2779. doi:10.3390/ijerph16152779
49. McDaniels, BW, Harley, DA, and Beach, DT. Transportation, Accessibility, and Accommodation in Rural Communities. In: Disability and Vocational Rehabilitation in Rural Settings. Springer (2018). p. 43–57.
50.Statutes of the Republic of Korea. Act on Guarantee of Right to Health and Access to Medical Services for Persons with Disabilities. Available from: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=40008&lang=ENG. 2015.
Keywords: disability, unmet healthcare needs, healthcare disparity, preventable hospitalization, decomposition analysis
Citation: Kim S and Jeon B (2023) Decomposing Disability Inequality in Unmet Healthcare Needs and Preventable Hospitalizations: An Analysis of the Korea Health Panel. Int J Public Health 68:1605312. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605312
Received: 09 August 2022; Accepted: 13 February 2023;
Published: 28 February 2023.
Edited by:
Olaf von dem Knesebeck, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, GermanyReviewed by:
Hyo Lee, Dongseo University, Republic of KoreaZachary Morris, Stony Brook University, United States
Copyright © 2023 Kim and Jeon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Boyoung Jeon, jeon.boyoung26@gmail.com