Document Type : Commentary
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation (C2E2), Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Fisher et al have provided a solid addition to health policy literature in their finding that universal health coverage supports equitable access to Australian primary healthcare (PHC), despite factors such as episodic care and poor distribution of services. Their definition of PHC was comprehensive, extending beyond medical care to include social determinants of health and public policy. However, they limited their operational definition for purposes of the study to general practice, community health and allied health. Applying a narrower definition risks lost opportunities to identify policy implications for equity beyond financial accessibility. The populations most at risk of noncommunicable diseases also face significant language, culture, and individual and systemic discrimination barriers to access. Future policy research should consider using a comprehensive PHC definition in determining variables of interest and designing research methodologies, to avoid missing important knowledge that allows existing biases within primary care to continue.