Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal for Equity in Health
Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Gender bias and sex-based differences in health care efficiency in Polish regions

Author: Błażej Łyszczarz

Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health differences between sexes are relatively well recognized, though less is known about the specificity of women's and men's health responsiveness to medical care. Applying data from Polish regions, this study identifies sex-based differences in medical care efficiency and investigates the reasons for these disparities in the gender bias context.

Methods

The study estimates sex-specific health production functions for regional data from Poland (1999–2013). Using panel-data regression, male and female life expectancies at ages 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 and 65 are regressed on a set of socioeconomic factors, with the primary interest in medical care proxied by doctor density.

Results

The results show that in Poland the association between life expectancy and doctor density was positive for both men and women; however, the coefficients for medical care were insignificant for those at birth and at the age of 30 for both sexes. The magnitude of health care for longevity was higher for men comparing to women at every age, though the difference between sexes was not statistically significant. The sex-based disparities in medical care efficiency were more pronounced at younger ages and they diminished with age. The inspection of data on the health system in Poland shows that male patients seemed to be in an advantageous position: the mean reimbursement per service for men was higher in most medical care areas; men reported less problems with access to health care; and their mortality trend exhibited more favorable evolution over time. Additionally, the association between other socioeconomic factors and health also differed across sexes, and several of these factors were more important for life expectancy than health care.

Conclusion

Polish medical care suffers from gender bias, which possibly makes men more responsive to medical care. The disparities in the operation of medical care in Poland should be challenged to achieve more equal access to services between sexes and possibly to gain more health from the treatment of female patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The data on physical activity is collected biannually, and all of the missing values were imputed using linear interpolation.
 
2
The number of those who train in sport clubs is not a perfect measure to control for physical activity because this number does not account for informal ways of exercising; however, it is reasonable to use this proxy instead of using no information on physical activity.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Oertelt-Prigione S, Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender aspects in clinical medicine. London: Springer; 2012.CrossRef
3.
4.
5.
Alspach JG. Is there gender bias in critical care? Crit Care Nurse. 2012;32:8–14.
6.
Asiskovitch S. Gender and health outcomes: The impact of healthcare systems and their financing on life expectancy of women and men. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:886–95.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Barthold D, Nandi A, Rodríguez JMM, Heymann J. Analyzing whether countries are equally efficient at improving longevity for men and women. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:2163–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Crémieux PY, Meilleur MC, Ouellette P, Petit P, Zelder M, Potvin K. Public and private pharmaceutical spending as determinants of health outcomes in Canada. Health Econ. 2005;14:107–16.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Joumard I, Andre C, Nicq C, Chatal O. Health status determinants: Lifestyle, environment, health care resources and efficiency. Paris: OECD Economics Department Working Papers; 2008. p. 627.
10.
Nixon J, Ulmann P. The relationship between health care expenditure and health outcomes. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7:7–18.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Or Z. Determinants of health outcomes in industrialised countries: a pooled, cross-country, time-series analysis. OECD Econ Stud. 2000;30:55–77.
12.
Or Z. Exploring the effects of health care on mortality across OECD countries. OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers. 2001;46. doi:10.​1787/​716472585704.
13.
Poças A, Soukiazis E. Health status determinants in the OECD countries. A panel data approach with endogenous regressors. GEMF Working Papers. 2010;4.
14.
Bayati M, Akbarian R, Kavosi Z. Determinants of life expectancy in Eastern Mediterranean Region: a health production function. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2013;1:57–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Grossman M. On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J Polit Econ. 1972;80:223–55.CrossRef
16.
Gujarati D. Econometrics by example. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
17.
Crémieux PY, Ouellette P, Pilon C. Health care spending as determinants of health outcomes. Health Econ. 1999;8:627–39.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Liu L, Cline RR, Schondelmeyer SW, Schommer JC. Pharmaceutical expenditures as a correlate of population health in industrialized nations. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:368–74.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Or Z, Wang J, Jamison D. International differences in the impact of doctors on health: a multilevel analysis of OECD countries. J Health Econ. 2005;24:531–60.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Reibling N. The international performance of healthcare systems in population health: Capabilities of pooled cross-sectional time series methods. Health Policy. 2013;112:122–32.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
23.
NFZ. Analiza korzystania ze świadczeń opieki zdrowotnej w 2009 r. i rozkładu indywidualnych wydatków Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia związanych z finansowaniem tych świadczeń [Analysis of health care services utilization in 2009 and distribution of National Health Fund's individual expenditure on these services financing]. Warsaw: NFZ; 2010.
24.
25.
GUS. Demographic yearbook of Poland 2015. Warsaw: GUS; 2015. also: 2008 and 2011 editions.
26.
Sagan A, Panteli D, Borkowski W, Dmowski M, Domański F, Czyżewski M, et al. Poland: Health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2011;13(8):1–193.PubMed
27.
Kozierkiewicz A, Topór-Mądry R, Kowalczyk A, Gilewski D, Śliwczyński A, Jędrzejczyk T, et al. Skuteczność i koszty leczenia raka odbytnicy w Polsce; podejście regionalne [Effectiveness and costs of rectal cancer therapy in Poland; a regional approach]. Nowotwory. 2015;65:271–80.CrossRef
28.
GUS. Healthcare in households in 2013. Warsaw: GUS; 2014. also: 2007 and 2011 editions.
29.
30.
Cook NL, Ayanian JZ, Orav EJ, Hicks LS. Differences in specialist consultations for cardiovascular disease by race, ethnicity, gender, insurance status, and site of primary care. Circulation. 2009;119:2463–70.CrossRefPubMed
31.
European Commission. Access to healthcare and long-term care. Equal for women and men? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2009.
32.
Bird CE, Rieker PP. Gender matters: an integrated model for understanding men's and women's health. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:745–55.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Thornton JA. Does more medical care improve population health? New evidence for an old controversy. Appl Econ. 2011;43:3325–36.CrossRef
34.
Cylus J, Hartman M, Washington B, Andrews K, Catlin A. Pronounced gender and age differences are evident in personal health care spending per person. Health Aff. 2011;30:153–60.CrossRef
35.
36.
CIHI. National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2014. Ottawa: CIHI; 2014.
37.
European Institute for Gender Equality. Gender Equality Index 2015. Measuring gender equality in the European Union 2005–2012. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union; 2015.
38.
Wakefield J, Lyons H. Spatial aggregation and ecological fallacy. In: Gelfand AE, Diggle PJ, Fuentes M, Guttorp P, editors. Handbook of spatial statistics. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010. p. 541–58.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Gender bias and sex-based differences in health care efficiency in Polish regions
Author
Błażej Łyszczarz
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1475-9276
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0501-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Individual and regional association between socioeconomic status and uncertainty stress, and life stress: a representative nationwide study of China

Research

Trends in socioeconomic inequalities among adult male hardcore smokers in Vietnam: 2010–2015

Research

Determinants of village doctors’ job satisfaction under China’s health sector reform: a cross-sectional mixed methods study

Research

Smoking and finances: baseline characteristics of low income daily smokers in the FISCALS cohort

Research

Socioeconomic inequalities in neonatal and postneonatal mortality: Evidence from rural Iran, 1998–2013

Research

Trends of relative and absolute socioeconomic equity in access to coronary revascularisations in 1995–2010 in Finland: a register study