TY - BOOK
T1 - Socio-economic inequality in small area use of elective total hip replacement in the English NHS in 1991 and 2001
AU - Cookson, R.
AU - Dusheiko, M.
AU - Hardman, G.
N1 - © 2006 the authors. The full text of this report can be viewed free of charge from the Centre for Health Economics web site at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp15.pdf
PY - 2006/5
Y1 - 2006/5
N2 - Introduction
International evidence suggests that there are substantial socio-economic inequalities in the delivery
of specialist health services, even in the UK and other high-income countries with publicly funded
health systems (Goddard and Smith 2001, Dixon et al. 2003, Van Doorslaer, Koolman and Jones
2004, Van Doorslaer et al. 2000). Studies of total hip replacement in the English NHS have yielded
particularly striking examples, given that hip replacement is such a common, effective and longestablished
health technology. Administrative data show that people living in deprived areas are less
likely to receive hip replacement (Chaturvedi and Ben-Shlomo 1995, Dixon et al. 2004) while survey
data suggest they may be more likely to need it (Milner et al. 2004). However, previous studies have
not examined change in inequality over time.
This paper presents evidence on the change in socio-economic inequality in small area use of elective
total hip replacement in the English NHS, comparing 1991 with 2001. This was a period of important
large-scale health care reform in England, involving at least two significant reforms that might
potentially have influenced socio-economic inequality in health care delivery: (1) the introduction and
subsequent abolition of the Conservative “internal market” 1991-7, and (2) the introduction in 1995 of
a revised NHS resource allocation formula designed to reduce geographical inequalities in health care
delivery.
Two datasets, for 1991 and 2001, were assembled from routine NHS data sources: Hospital Episode
Statistics (HES) on hospital utilisation in England and the corresponding decennial National Censuses
in 1991 and 2001. Both datasets contain information on over 8,000 electoral wards in England (over
95% of the total). To improve comparability, a common geography of frozen 1991 wards was
adopted. The Townsend deprivation score was employed as an indicator of socio-economic status.
Inequality was analysed in two ways. First, for comparability with previous small area studies of hip
replacement, by using simple range measures based on indirectly age-sex standardised utilisation
ratios (SURs) by deprivation quintile groups. Second, using concentration indices of deprivationrelated
inequality in use based on indirectly age-sex standardised utilisation ratios for each individual
small area. Each SUR is the observed use divided by the expected use, if each age and sex group in
the study population had the same rates of use as the national population.
AB - Introduction
International evidence suggests that there are substantial socio-economic inequalities in the delivery
of specialist health services, even in the UK and other high-income countries with publicly funded
health systems (Goddard and Smith 2001, Dixon et al. 2003, Van Doorslaer, Koolman and Jones
2004, Van Doorslaer et al. 2000). Studies of total hip replacement in the English NHS have yielded
particularly striking examples, given that hip replacement is such a common, effective and longestablished
health technology. Administrative data show that people living in deprived areas are less
likely to receive hip replacement (Chaturvedi and Ben-Shlomo 1995, Dixon et al. 2004) while survey
data suggest they may be more likely to need it (Milner et al. 2004). However, previous studies have
not examined change in inequality over time.
This paper presents evidence on the change in socio-economic inequality in small area use of elective
total hip replacement in the English NHS, comparing 1991 with 2001. This was a period of important
large-scale health care reform in England, involving at least two significant reforms that might
potentially have influenced socio-economic inequality in health care delivery: (1) the introduction and
subsequent abolition of the Conservative “internal market” 1991-7, and (2) the introduction in 1995 of
a revised NHS resource allocation formula designed to reduce geographical inequalities in health care
delivery.
Two datasets, for 1991 and 2001, were assembled from routine NHS data sources: Hospital Episode
Statistics (HES) on hospital utilisation in England and the corresponding decennial National Censuses
in 1991 and 2001. Both datasets contain information on over 8,000 electoral wards in England (over
95% of the total). To improve comparability, a common geography of frozen 1991 wards was
adopted. The Townsend deprivation score was employed as an indicator of socio-economic status.
Inequality was analysed in two ways. First, for comparability with previous small area studies of hip
replacement, by using simple range measures based on indirectly age-sex standardised utilisation
ratios (SURs) by deprivation quintile groups. Second, using concentration indices of deprivationrelated
inequality in use based on indirectly age-sex standardised utilisation ratios for each individual
small area. Each SUR is the observed use divided by the expected use, if each age and sex group in
the study population had the same rates of use as the national population.
M3 - Commissioned report
T3 - CHE Research Paper
BT - Socio-economic inequality in small area use of elective total hip replacement in the English NHS in 1991 and 2001
PB - Centre for Health Economics, University of York
CY - York, UK
ER -