This study explores income inequalities in the utilization of medical care by cancer patients in South Korea, according to type of medical facilities and survival duration. The five-year retrospective cohort study used data drawn from the Korean Cancer Registry, the National Health Insurance database, and the death database of the Korean National Statistical Office. The sample consisted of 43,433 patients diagnosed with cancer in 1999. The authors found significant quantitative inequalities as a function of income in the patients' utilization of medical care. Cancer patients from the highest income class used inpatient and outpatient care more frequently than did patients from the lowest income class. Those with higher incomes tended to use more inpatient and outpatient services at major tertiary hospitals, which were known as providing better medical care than other types of hospitals and clinics. Moreover, horizontal inequality in cancer-care expenditures favoring those with higher incomes was observed during earlier periods of treatment. In conclusion, income substantially affects the utilization of inpatient and outpatient services, amount of medical expenditures, and type of medical facilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShinH. R.Cancer incidence in Korea. Cancer Res. Treat.34: 405–408, 2003.
2.
Korea National Statistical Office. Annual Report on the Cause of Death Statistics, 2004. Daejon, 2005 (in Korean).
3.
BaeS. S.Effects of regional health insurance on access to ambulatory care. Korean J. Health Policy Admin. 2: 167–293, 1992 (in Korean).
4.
MyuongJ. Y., and MoonO. R.Equity in the delivery of health care in the Republic of Korea. Korean J. Health Policy Admin. 5: 155–172, 1995 (in Korean).
5.
LeeS. M.Studies on Differentials in Health Level and Medical Service Utilization in Various Groups. Seoul National University, Seoul, 1996 (in Korean).
6.
MajeedF. A.Equity in the NHS: Monitoring and promoting equity in primary and secondary care. BMJ308: 1426–1429, 1994.
7.
AndersonG. M.Use of coronary artery bypass surgery in the United States and Canada: Influence of age and income. JAMA269: 1661–1666, 1993.
8.
van DoorslaerE.Equity in the delivery of health care in Europe and the US. J. Health Econ. 19: 553–583, 2000.
9.
FontanaV.Socioeconomic status and survival of gastric cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer.34: 537–542, 1998.
10.
BergJ. W.RossR., and LatouretteH. B.Equity in the delivery of health care in the Republic of Korea. Cancer39: 467–477, 1977.
11.
LamontD. W.Age, socio-economic status and survival from cancer of the cervix in the West of Scotland 1980–87. Br. J. Cancer.67: 351–357, 1993.
12.
KogevinasM., and PortaM.Social differences in cancer survival: A review of the evidence. In Social Inequalities and Cancer, Ed. 1, ed. KogevinasM.IARC Scientific Publications, Lyon, 1997.
13.
WrigleyH.Inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer: A comparison of the impact of deprivation, treatment, and host factors on observed and cause-specific survival. J. Epidemiol. Community Health57: 301–309, 2003.
14.
DickmanP. W.Measuring social class differences in cancer patient survival: Is it necessary to control for social class differences in general population mortality? A Finnish population-based study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health52: 727–734, 1998.
15.
RossoS.Social class and cancer survival in Turin, Italy. J. Epidemiol. Community Health51: 30–34, 1997.
16.
KiefeC. I.Is cost a barrier to screening mammography for low-income women receiving Medicare benefits? A randomized trial. Arch. Intern. Med.154: 1217–1224, 1994.
17.
KatzS. J., and HoferT. P.Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage: Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA272: 530–534, 1994.
18.
MaheswaranR.Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J. Epidemiol. Community Health60: 208–212, 2006.
19.
ThorpeK. E., and HowardD.Health insurance and spending among cancer patients. Health Aff. W3: 189–198, 2003.
20.
SabatinoS. A.Health insurance coverage and cost barriers to needed medical care among U.S. adult cancer survivors age <65 years. Cancer106: 2466–2475, 2006.
21.
LemmensV. E.Adjuvant treatment for elderly patients with stage III colon cancer in the southern Netherlands is affected by socioeconomic status, gender, and comorbidity. Ann. Oncol.16: 767–772, 2005.
22.
HallS. E.Colorectal cancer surgical care and survival: Do private health insurance, socioeconomic and locational status make a difference?Aust. N. Z. J. Surg.75: 929–935, 2005.
23.
KimC. W.Inequality in Incidence, Fatality and Utilization of Cancer Patients across Income Groups in South Korea. Dissertation, Seoul National University, 2005 (in Korean).
24.
CharlsonM. E.A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chron. Dis.40: 373–383, 1987.
25.
ChooS. Y.Educational differences in health care utilization in the last year of life among South Korean cancer patients. J. Prev. Med. Public Health40: 36–44, 2007 (in Korean).
26.
MooneyG.Utilisation as a measure of equity: Weighing heat?J. Health Econ. 10: 475–480, 1991.
27.
WagstaffA.PaciP., and van DoorslaerE.On the measurement of inequalities in health. Soc. Sci. Med.33(5): 545–557, 1991.
28.
BeggC. B.Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA280: 1747–1751, 1998.
29.
BachP. B.The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.345: 181–188, 2001.
30.
SimunovicM.Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario. Can. J. Surg.49: 251–258, 2006.
31.
BoydC.Associations between community income and cancer survival in Ontario, Canada, and the United States. J. Clin. Oncol.17: 2244–2256, 1999.
32.
KimC. Y.The Korean economic crisis and coping strategies in the health sector: Pro-welfarism or neoliberalism?Int. J. Health Serv. 35: 561–578, 2005.
33.
LeeS. Y.The national health insurance system as one type of new typology: The case of South Korea and Taiwan. Health Policy85: 105–113, 2008.
34.
PeabodyJ. W.LeeS. W., and BickelS. R.Health for all in the Republic of Korea: One country's experiences with implementing universal health care. Health Policy31(1): 29–42, 1995.
35.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2009—Frequently Requested Data. 2009. www.oecd.org/health/healthdata (accessed November 20, 2009).
36.
KimJ. H., and LeeH. Y.Copayment survey on National Health Insurance patients, 2005. Health Insur. Forum.5(4): 42–58, 2006 (in Korean).
37.
ChunC. B.Republic of Korea: Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Copenhagen, 2009.
38.
HartJ. T.The inverse care law. Lancet1: 405–412, 1971.
39.
HartJ.T.Commentary: Three decades of the inverse care law. BMJ320: 18–19, 2000.
