Cream skimming can be defined as the selective treatment of patients that demand few resources while providing high economic refunds. We test whether cream skimming occurs after the introduction of DRG-based activity-based financing (ABF) in Norway in 1997 and if the problem further increased after the 2002 organizational reform when hospitals were turned into trusts. The DRG-system offers the same economic reimbursement for patients classified within day-surgical DRGs irrespective of whether the patient receives same-day treatment or in-patient care over several days. This provides potential for cream skimming and allows us to investigate cream skimming within the actual diagnoses. Patient data from the period 1999-2005 is analyzed. Waiting times are used as indicators of patient selection and analyzed as a function of severity within each diagnosis, controlling for age and gender of the patient, as well as institutional and time-dependent variables. The analysis gives some evidence of cream skimming in the first period of ABF, in particular within the lighter orthopaedic diagnoses. However, cream skimming does not increase after the 2002 organizational reform but is stable, and for some DRGs even reduced. The study indicates that cream skimming may occur if reimbursement systems are not particularly sophisticated. Softening of budget constraints after the hospital reform of 2002 may explain why cream skimming does not increase after the reform. However, further investigation into this mechanism is needed.

This paper argues on ethical and practical grounds for more widespread use of an integrated approach to refugee healthcare, and proposes a basic model of assessment for integrated systems. A defining element of an integrated approach is an equal ability by refugee and host nationals to access the same healthcare resources from the same providers. This differs fundamentally from parallel care, currently the predominant practice in Africa. The authors put forward a general model for evaluation of integrated healthcare with four criteria: (1) improved health outcomes for both hosts and refugees, (2) increased social integration, (3) increased equitable use of healthcare resources, and (4) no undermining of protection. Historical examples of integrated care in Ethiopia and Uganda are examined in light of these criteria to illustrate how this evaluative model would generate evidence currently lacking in debates on the merit of integrated healthcare.

Although access to health care is frequently identified as a goal for health care policy, the precise meaning of access to health care often remains unclear. We present a conceptual framework that defines access to health care as the empowerment of an individual to use health care and as a multidimensional concept based on the interaction (or degree of fit) between health care systems and individuals, households, and communities. Three dimensions of access are identified: availability, affordability, and acceptability, through which access can be evaluated directly instead of focusing on utilisation of care as a proxy for access. We present the case for the comprehensive evaluation of health care systems as well as the dimensions of access, and the factors underlying each dimension. Such systemic analyses can inform policy-makers about the ‘fit’ between needs for health care and receipt of care, and provide the basis for developing policies that promote improvements in the empowerment to use care.

The English government has given a commitment to improving access to health care services for particular groups perceived as being under-served, or served inappropriately, by existing services. In this article four examples of policies aimed at improving access are considered: enhancing the supply of services to under-served areas, changing the organization of services, setting targets to improve access, and empowering people to make choices. Policies aimed at improving access will work only if they address the source of inequities, which means identifying the key barriers to access and these barriers are unlikely to be uniform across sectors, services, and groups of people. Evidence on the success of these four types of intervention in terms of influencing access and equity of access is discussed, borrowing some concepts from the sociological literature that enable us to understand the importance of how barriers to access may arise for different services and different population groups. It is clear that some policies may not work as well as we would hope, or may even exacerbate inequities of access, because they fail to recognize the source of the particular barriers faced by some groups.

This article considers two key issues in health economics regarding the question of equity. First, why have health economists not resolved better the issue of what are equity and access? Second, the paper draws attention to the relative lack of analyses of equity concerns outside of health care. The question of whose values should prevail in equity is also addressed. On the first issue, there is an obsession with quantification in economics with the result that in analysing equity, in practice often ‘use’ has been substituted for ‘access’. The problem of defining access has thereby been by-passed. This has taken the pressure off trying to research access per se. Second, what is meant by equity and access are in part culturally determined. The continued efforts of health economists to treat equity as some universal construct are misplaced. The lack of effort on the part of health economists to look at equity more broadly than health care equity is concerning. Certainly, to be pursued in practice, equity in both health and health care need a shift in resources, which will be opposed by those who exercise power over decision making in health care and in society more generally. Currently health economists’ analyses say all too little about power and property rights in health care and in society. It is argued that the relevant citizens or communities which a health service serves are best placed to judge the access barriers they face and their relative heights. A useful definition of equity established by a citizens’ jury in Perth, Australia is used to exemplify this point. It is concluded that the often all too simplistic equity goals adopted in health economics (and sometimes public health discourse) need to be challenged. For health economists, there is a need for more of us to get involved in the issues around inequalities, class and power and the impact of these on health.

Health equity is one of the main avowed objectives of public health policy across the world. Yet economic evaluations in public health (like those in health care more generally) continue to focus on maximizing health gain. Health equity considerations are rarely mentioned. Health economists rely on the quasi-egalitarian value judgment that ‘a QALY is a QALY’ – that is QALYs are equally weighted and the same health outcome is worth the same no matter how it is achieved or to whom it accrues. This value judgment is questionable in many important circumstances in public health. For example, policy-makers may place rather little value on health outcomes achieved by infringing individual liberties or by discriminating on the basis of age, sex, or race. Furthermore, there is evidence that a majority of the general public wish to give greater weight to health gains accruing to children, the severely ill, and, to a lesser extent, the socio-economically disadvantaged. This paper outlines four approaches to explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation in public health: (i) review of background information on equity, (ii) health inequality impact assessment, (iii) analysis of the opportunity cost of equity, and (iv) equity weighting of health outcomes. The first three approaches can readily be applied using standard methods of health technology assessment, where suitable data are available; whereas approaches for generating equity weights remain experimental. The potential benefits of considering equity are likely to be largest in cases involving: (a) interventions that target disadvantaged individuals or communities and are also relatively cost-ineffective and (b) interventions to encourage lifestyle change, which may be relatively ineffective among ‘hard-to-reach’ disadvantaged groups and hence may require re-design to avoid increasing health inequalities.