Provincial screening rates for chronic diseases of lifestyle, cancers and HIV in a health-insured population
L
Adonis,
1
MB BCh, MBA, MMed, FCPHM (SA); R An,
2
MPhil, MPP; J Luiz,
3
BCom Hons, MCom, PhD; A Mehrotra,
2
MD, MPH;
D Patel,
4
MB BCh, MMed, MPhil; D Basu,
1
FCPHM (SA), MMed, PhD (Med); R Sturm,
2
MS Ecos, MA Stats, PhD Ecos
1 School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
2 RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA
3 Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, South Africa
4
Discovery Vitality, Sandton, South Africa
Corresponding author:
L Adonis (leegale@me.com, leegale@mweb.co.za)
Background. Screening for asymptomatic diseases can reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality in all population groups. There is widespread geographical variation in the quality of care. Few data are available on national screening rates in South Africa and how these vary across the provinces.
Objective. To examine screening rates for chronic diseases of lifestyle (CDL), HIV and cancer in a privately insured population for a single insurer across all nine provinces in South Africa, and to determine whether or not there are any differences between the provinces.
Method. Screening rates were calculated as the proportion of eligible members who had received screening tests during 2011 in each province. Mean screening rates were compared between Gauteng and the other eight provinces.
Results. Nationwide screening rates were 20.5% for CDL, 8.2% for HIV and 31.9% for cancer. Despite similar insurance coverage, screening rates ranged from 0.3% to 0.95% lower in other provinces compared with Gauteng. Of all the provinces, Gauteng had the highest annual screening rates for CDL, breast cancer, prostate cancer and HIV (p<0.001), while the Western Cape had the highest rate for cervical cancer (p<0.001).
Conclusion. There is much variation in
preventive care utilisation across the provinces within this
health-insured population. Provinces with more abundant
healthcare resources have higher screening rates. Further
research is required to understand the reasons for the
variation, given equal payment access.
S Afr Med J
2013;103(5):309-312.
DOI:10.7196/SAMJ.6686
Geographical variations in healthcare utilisation can perpetuate health disparities.1 Use of preventive services is particularly likely to be low when access to health services is a barrier.2-5 In addition, there is a strong association between a population’s residential location or region and use of preventive screening services.6-8 As a result, there are wide variations in healthcare utilisation and health outcomes across the provinces of South Africa (SA).9 Gauteng and the Western Cape are economically more prosperous and urbanised, are better resourced, and have superior health and development indicators compared with poorer provinces such as Limpopo and the Northern Cape.10 Access to medical insurance is positively associated with the use of preventive care services.11 , 12 Approximately 14% of SA’s population currently has access to medical insurance.13 Little is known about provincial disparities in healthcare utilisation in the privately insured sector, or what factors drive these disparities.
Discovery Health, the largest
medical aid in SA, with an approximately 40% market share,
offers a fully paid screening programme for its members. This
study aimed to investigate the variation in use of preventive
screening services of the Discovery Health membership across the
nine provinces of SA. Given that all members have equal access
to preventive services, other factors may be at play if
disparities do exist. Understanding the provincial disparities
may steer more targeted messaging or further research into
defining reasons, such as health and human resources
availability and capacity, for varying preventive care use.
Materials and methods
Setting
The study population consisted of all members of Discovery Health medical aid as at the end of 2011. The Discovery Health screening programme offers a paid screening benefit to its members for mammograms, Pap smears, HIV tests, glaucoma screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening, random glucose and cholesterol tests, ’flu vaccines and pneumococcal vaccines, irrespective of the type of medical plan members belong to. Other preventive screening tests are not fully paid for and have some form of co-payments; these include colorectal cancer and osteoporosis screening. The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand granted ethical clearance for the study (certificate No. M120854).
Methods
Eligibility criteria for the tests evaluated were adapted from
the US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and are
outlined in Table 1. Some preventive tests have clear
recommendations for screening frequency, while others do not.
For this study, screening for a disease was characterised as
having had at least one of the screening tests outlined in Table
1 for the calendar year of 2011 (annual average). It is
therefore not an evaluation of whether members’ screening
behaviour adheres to screening recommendations. The study also
did not evaluate differences between covered and non-covered
tests, but simply the provincial variation in annual screening
rates. Each member was assigned to one of the nine provinces
according to a valid address in that province for the duration
of 2011.
Table 1. Eligibility criteria for screening tests |
||
Preventive care services |
Eligible population |
Recommendations for how often tests should be performed |
Cholesterol test |
18 years and older |
Once every 5 years |
Glucose test |
18 years and older |
No well-established recommendation. Usually once every 5 years |
Glaucoma screening |
40 years and older |
No well-established recommendation |
HIV |
18 years and older |
No well-established recommendation. Usually yearly for persons at risk |
Prostate cancer test |
Male, 50 years and older |
No well-established recommendation |
Pap smear |
Female, 16 years and older |
Once every 3 years |
Mammogram |
Female, 35 years and older |
Once every 2 years |
Colorectal cancer screening |
50 years and older |
Colonoscopy: once every 10 years Sigmoidoscopy: once every 5 years Faecal occult blood: yearly |
Bone density scan |
Female, 50 years and older |
No well-established recommendation |
Statistical analyses
The study was a
cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the annual screening
rate of all eligible medical aid members in 2011 across all
nine provinces. The mean screening rate for each test was
compared between provinces using Student’s t-test
for unpaired samples, with Gauteng as the baseline. Variation
between provinces was described using ratios of differences.
All analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 (StataCorp, USA).
Results
Screening rates for a total of 1 889 447 members were evaluated
for the year 2011. Descriptive statistics of the study sample by
province are reported in Table 2. The provincial screening rates
are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the study sample by province |
||
Province |
Frequency ( n ) |
% |
Eastern Cape |
98 211 |
5.20 |
Free State |
50 415 |
2.76 |
Gauteng |
895 202 |
47.38 |
KwaZulu-Natal |
267 700 |
14.17 |
Limpopo |
29 883 |
1.58 |
Mpumalanga |
105 662 |
5.59 |
North West |
55 787 |
2.95 |
Northern Cape |
17 889 |
0.95 |
Western Cape |
367 186 |
19.43 |
Non-RSA |
1 509 |
0.08 |
Total |
1 889 447 |
100 |
Table 3. Provincial screening rates |
||||||||
|
Cholesterol |
Glucose |
HIV |
Prostate |
Pap smear |
Mammogram |
Colorectal cancer |
Osteoporosis |
National average* (international targets – where they exist)† |
20.5 (82.1) |
23.8 |
8.2 |
31.9 |
16.7 (93.0) |
13.3 (81.1) |
0.4 (70.5) |
5.7 |
Eastern Cape |
21.9 |
23.8 |
7.3 |
33.8 |
17.5 |
12.1 |
0.7‡ |
5.8 |
Free State |
17.1 |
19.4 |
5.2 |
32.3 |
15.1 |
16.2 |
0.4 |
5.8 |
Gauteng |
27.5‡ |
29.6 |
12.8‡ |
37.7‡ |
22.4 |
17.0‡ |
0.6 |
7.9‡ |
KwaZulu-Natal |
23.2 |
26.3 |
10.2 |
27.2 |
16.9 |
13.2 |
0.3 |
4.9 |
Limpopo |
19.7 |
20.7 |
11.0 |
29.4 |
12.3 |
9.4 |
0.2 |
6.0 |
Mpumalanga |
18.6 |
29.7§ |
6.7 |
32.6 |
15.1 |
12.6 |
0.3 |
6.5 |
North West |
17.9 |
20.5 |
5.9 |
34.9 |
14.5 |
13.0 |
0.3 |
5.3 |
Northern Cape |
13.4 |
17.5 |
4.8 |
25.6 |
13.1 |
10.2 |
0.4 |
2.2 |
Western Cape |
25.5 |
26.6 |
9.9 |
33.8 |
23.1‡ |
16.1 |
0.6 |
5.4 |
*Average proportion of eligible Discovery Health Members who utilise the screening service. †Healthy People 2020 Targets (USA).14 ‡Significant difference in screening rate when comparing Gauteng with other provinces/or compared with Gauteng (p<0.001). §No significant difference in screening rate when compared with Gauteng (p=0.97). |
Gauteng had the highest annual screening rate for cholesterol
at 27.5% of eligible insured members, and the Northern Cape
the lowest at 13.4%. Gauteng’s screening rate for cholesterol
was also significantly higher than those of the other
provinces, figures for which were between 0.93 (Western Cape)
and 0.49 (Northern Cape) times lower than Gauteng (p<0.001).
The variations in screening rates are shown in Table 4. The
highest annual screening rate for glucose was 29.7%
(Mpumalanga), although this was not significantly different
from Gauteng’s 29.6% (p=0.97). The lowest screening
rate for glucose was in the Northern Cape (17.5%), with a
variation of 0.59 times lower than Gauteng. KwaZulu-Natal had
a 0.84 times lower screening for cholesterol than Gauteng.
Table 4. Variation in screening rates between Gauteng and the other provinces |
||||||||
|
Ratio by which province is lower (higher) than Gauteng |
|||||||
Province |
Cholesterol |
Glucose |
HIV |
Prostate |
Pap smear |
Mammogram |
Colorectal cancer |
Osteoporosis |
Eastern Cape |
0.78 |
0.80 |
0.57 |
0.90 |
0.78 |
0.71 |
(1.17) |
0.73 |
Free State |
0.62 |
0.66 |
0.41 |
0.86 |
0.67 |
0.95 |
0.67 |
0.73 |
KwaZulu-Natal |
0.84 |
0.89 |
0.80 |
0.72 |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.50 |
0.62 |
Limpopo |
0.72 |
0.70 |
0.86 |
0.78 |
0.55 |
0.55 |
0.33 |
0.76 |
Mpumalanga |
0.68 |
1.00 |
0.52 |
0.86 |
0.67 |
0.74 |
0.50 |
0.82 |
North West |
0.65 |
0.69 |
0.46 |
0.78 |
0.65 |
0.76 |
0.50 |
0.67 |
Northern Cape |
0.49 |
0.59 |
0.38 |
0.68 |
0.58 |
0.60 |
0.67 |
0.28 |
Western Cape |
0.93 |
0.90 |
0.77 |
0.90 |
(1.03) |
0.95 |
1.00 |
0.68 |
Prostate cancer screening had the highest uptake of all preventive screening tests. Around 37.7% of males over 50 years old had had a PSA test in Gauteng, versus a low of 25.6% of males in the Northern Cape. Gauteng had the highest screening rate for prostate cancer of all the provinces (p<0.001), and screening rates for prostate cancer ranged from 0.90 to 0.68 times lower in other provinces compared with Gauteng.
The Western Cape had the highest cervical cancer screening rate (p<0.001), with 23.1% of all eligible females having had a Pap smear versus only 13.1% of females in the Northern Cape. The screening rate for cervical cancer in the Western Cape was 1.03 times higher than that in Gauteng, while the rate was 0.55 times lower in Limpopo than in Gauteng.
The highest screening rate for breast cancer was in Gauteng (p<0.001), with 17.0% of eligible females having had a mammogram, while the lowest rate of 9.4% was in the Northern Cape. Rates for mammograms ranged from 0.95 to 0.60 times lower in the other provinces compared with Gauteng.
HIV screening had the largest variation of all the screening tests. Gauteng had the highest rate (p<0.001), with 12.8% of members having had the test, and the lowest rate was in the Northern Cape, where only 4.8% of members had been tested in 2011. Northern Cape had a 0.38 times lower screening rate than Gauteng.
Colorectal cancer screening, currently not part of the paid screening benefit, had the lowest rate. The Eastern Cape (0.7%) had the highest rate (p<0.001), while the lowest rate (0.2%) was in Limpopo. The Eastern Cape’s screening rate was 1.17 times higher than Gauteng’s and 3.5 times higher than Limpopo’s.
Osteoporosis screening, which is also not part of the paid screening benefit, had the highest rate in Gauteng (p<0.001), with 7.9% of members undergoing screening, and the lowest rate in the Northern Cape (2.2%). Rates of screening for osteoporosis were between 0.82 and 0.28 times lower in the other eight provinces than in Gauteng.
Screening rates for all the provinces are presented in Fig. 1, with Gauteng shown in black.
Discussion
Use of screening services in this SA medical aid population is low and far below international benchmark targets of 93.0% for cervical cancer, 70.5% for colorectal cancer, 81.1% for breast cancer and 82.1% for cholesterol screening.14 Surveys of screening rates in comparable populations showed that 68% of adults in the USA reported having had a cholesterol test in the preceding 5 years, and more than 75% of females aged 40 years and older had had a mammogram in the preceding 2 years;15 in European countries (Germany, the Netherlands, England and Italy), between 61% and 79% of females over 50 years were screened for breast cancer biennially. [15,16 ] Screening rates among medically insured individuals tend to be slightly higher than in the uninsured, with rates of up to 77.6% for mammograms, 91.5% for Pap smears, 85.5% for cholesterol tests and 50.9% for colorectal cancer.17
There is considerable variation in utilisation of screening services between provinces in the SA insured population. Screening rates for chronic diseases of lifestyle varied from 30% to 50% lower in the Northern Cape and Limpopo compared with Gauteng and the Western Cape. Cancer screening ranged from 45% to 5% lower in some provinces compared with Gauteng. Rates of HIV screening in the Free State, North West and the Northern Cape were less than half that in Gauteng. This is consistent with findings of others that urbanised areas achieved better uptake of screening services.18
The variation in utilisation of screening services seen in this medically insured population may not be unusual. Even among medical aid members, where the costs of screening tests are paid for, and in settings where screening facilities are easily accessible, researchers have found poor uptake of services.19 , 20 This confirms the previous conclusion that access alone is not the only driver of healthcare utilisation disparities.1 Access to facilities may be better in the more urbanised provinces and may play a role in the unequal use of preventive services, together with several other individual and provider factors.6 , 21 Further research is required to fully understand the reasons for inequitable use of preventive services across the nine provinces in this health insured population.
This study is limited by the fact that it focused only on
annual uptake of screening services and not on adherence to
screening guidelines, disease detection rates or
treatment/management outcomes. Further research is necessary to
analyse available data over longer time frames in order to
establish the proportion of people who have availed themselves
of recommended screening, as well as their health outcomes.
Another limitation is that inferences in respect of screening
rates can be drawn only on other groups within SA with similar
health insurance coverage and not on the uninsured population.
It is expected that the general uninsured population screening
rate would be much lower than those of the health-insured
population. Future research agendas should include comprehensive
evaluation of all preventive screening services utilisation
(CDL, cancers and HIV) in the uninsured population, with a view
to establishing eligibility criteria and creating targets for
utilisation of services at various national, provincial and
district levels and strengthening national databases, given the
imminent introduction of National Health Insurance. This study
provides some indication of screening patterns at a national
level and the variation that persists in this privately insured
population. The strength of this study is that it analysed the
entire health-insured population’s screening activity over a
1-year period at both national and provincial level and
therefore accurately represents their annual screening practices
compared with survey data estimations.
Conclusion
This is the first look at national screening practices in a South African population. In this health-insured population, screening varies greatly between provinces for CDL, cancers and HIV. Screening rates in the larger uninsured South African population may be even lower.
We found that the
better-resourced provinces had higher screening rates. The
variations between the provinces deserve further exploration in
order to evaluate the effect of resource allocation, access to
care, provider factors and socio-demographic characteristics
that may impact on screening rates.
References
1. Long JA, Chang VW, Ibrahim SA, Asch DA. Update on the health disparities literature. Ann Intern Med 2004;141(10):805-812.
2. Seo HS, Lee NK. Predictors of PSA screening among men over 40 years of age who had ever heard about PSA. Korean Journal of Urology 2010;51(6):391-397. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju2010.51.6.391]
3. Holden DJ, Jonas DE, Porterfield DS, Reuland D, Harris R. Systematic review: Enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2010;152(10):668-676.
4. Zapka JG, Lemon SC. Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations. Cancer 2004;101(5 Suppl):1165-1187. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20504]
5. Meersman SC, Breen N, Pickle LW, Meissner HI, Simon P. Access to mammography screening in a large urban population: A multi-level analysis. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20(8):1469-1482. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9373-4]
6. Richardson H, Aronson KJ, James A, McGregor SE, Bryant H. Factors related to use of prostate cancer screening: The Alberta Tomorrow Project. Open Med 2007;1(1):e3-e12.
7. Dailey AD, Kasl SV, Holford TR, et al. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic predictors of non-adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(11):2293-2303. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1076]
8. Elit L, Krzyzanowska M, Saskin R, et al. Sociodemographic factors associated with cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Can Fam Physician 2012;58(1):e22-31.
9. Bradshaw D, Laubscher NNR, Groenewald P, et al. South African National Burden of Diseases Study 2000. Estimates of Provincial Mortality. Summary Report. Cape Town: Medical Research Council, 2006.
10. Coovadia H, Jewkes R, Barron P, Sanders D, McIntyre D. The health and health system of South Africa: Historical roots of current public health challenges. Lancet 2009;374(9692):817-834. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60951-X]
11. Nelson W, Moser RP, Gaffey A, Waldron W. Adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines for US women aged 25-64: Data from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Womens Health 2009;18(11):1759-1768. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1430]
12. Zhao D, Zhang Z, Rao K. Health insurance and household income associated with mammography utilization among American women, 2000-2008. Chin Med J 2011;124(20):3320-3326. [http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2011.20.021]
13. McIntyre D, Thiede M. Health care financing and expenditure. In: Ijumba P, Padarath A, eds. South African Health Review. Durban: Health Systems Trust, 2007.
14. Healthy People 2020. Summary of objectives. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/pdfs/Cancer.pdf (accessed 3 March 2013).
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of selected clinical preventive services among adults – United States, 2007-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61(Suppl; June 15, 2012):1-79.
16. Biesheuvel C, Weigela S, Heindela W. Mammography screening: Evidence, history and current practice in Germany and other European countries. Breast Care 2011;6(2):104-109. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000327493]
17. Hughes MC, Hannon PA, Harris JR, Patrick DL. Health behaviors of employed and insured adults in the United States, 2004-2005. Am J Health Promot 2010;24(5): 315-323. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.080603-QUAN-77]
18. Schumacher MC, Slattery ML, Lanier AP, et al. Prevalence and predictors of cancer screening among American Indian and Alaska native people: The EARTH study. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19(7):725-737. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-008-9135-8]
19. Mobley LR, Kuo TM, Clayton LJ, Evans WD. Mammography facilities are accessible, so why is utilization so low? Cancer Causes Control 2009;20(6):1017-1028. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9295-1]
20. DuBard CA, Schmid D, Yow A, Rogers AB, Lawrence WW. Recommendation for and receipt of cancer screenings among Medicaid recipients 50 years and older. Arch Intern Med 2008;168(18):2014-2021. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.18.2014]
21. Damiani G, Federico B, Basso D, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2012;12(99):1-10. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2458-12-99]
Accepted 18 March 2013.
Article Views
Full text views: 19466
Comments on this article
*Read our policy for posting comments here