Background: The French Universal Health Cover (CMU) aims to compensate for inequalities between precarious and non-precarious populations, enabling the former to access to free healthcare. These measures rely on the principle that precarious populations’ health improves if healthcare is free. We designed a study to examine whether CMU fails to compensate for inequalities in reimbursed drugs prescriptions in precarious populations. Material and method: This retrospective pharmaco-epidemiological study compared the Defined Daily Dose relative to different reimbursed drugs prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) to precarious and non-precarious patients in France in 2015. Data were analysed using Mann–Whitney tests. Findings: 6 out of 20 molecules were significantly under-reimbursed in precarious populations. 2 were over-reimbursed. The 12 remaining molecules did not differ between groups. Interpretation: The under-reimbursement of atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, tamsulosine and timolol reflects well-documented epidemiological differences between these populations. In contrast, the equal reimbursement of amoxicillin, pyostacine, ivermectin, salbutamol and tiopropium is likely an effect of lack of compensation for inequalities. Precarious patients are more affected by diseases that these molecules target (e.g., chronic bronchitis, bacterial pneumonia, cutaneous infections). This could also be the case for the equal and under-reimbursement of insulin glargine and metformin (targeting diabetes), respectively, although this has to be considered with caution. In conclusion, the French free healthcare cover does not fail to compensate for all but only for some selective inequalities in access to reimbursed drugs prescriptions. These results are discussed with respect to the interaction of the doctor–patient relationship and the holistic nature of primary care, potentially triggering burnout and empathy decrease and negatively impacting the quality of care in precarious populations.

Background In France , a Pap test for cervical cancer screening is recommended every three years for all sexually active women aged 25 to 65 years. Modes of contraception (any or no contraception, with or without a visit to a physician, and with or without a gynecological examination) may influence adhesion to screening: women who use intrauterine device (IUD) should be more up to date with their cervical cancer screening more often than those using other means of contraception. Our objectives were to analyze the association between modes of contraception and Pap tests for screening. Methods This cross sectional study is based on the CONSTANCES cohort enabled us to include 16,764 women aged 25–50 years. The factors associated with adhesion to cervical cancer screening (defined by a report of a Pap test within the previous 3 years) was modeled by logistic regression. Missing data were imputed by using multiple imputations. The multivariate analyses were adjusted for sex life, social and demographic characteristics, and health status. Results Overall, 11.2% (1875) of the women reported that they were overdue for Pap test screening. In the multivariate analysis there was no significant difference between women using an IUD and those pills or implant of pap test overdue ORa:0.9 CI 95% [0.8–1.1], ORa 1.3 CI 95% [0.7–2.7] respectively. Women not using contraceptives and those using non-medical contraceptives (condoms, spermicides, etc.) were overdue more often ORa: 2.6 CI 95% [2.2–3.0] and ORa: 1.8 CI 95% [1.6–2.1] respectively than those using an IUD. Conclusion Women seeing medical professionals for contraception are more likely to have Pap tests.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Many countries currently recommend that screening for cervical cancer begin at the age of 25 years. Premature screening (before that age) could lead to unnecessary follow-up examinations and procedures that turn out to be useless. Our objective is to ascertain if the use of particular contraceptive methods are associated with premature screening. Methods This cross-sectional study based on the CONSTANCES cohort enabled us to include 4297 women younger than 25 years. The factors associated with premature screening were modeled by logistic regression. Missing data were handled by multiple imputations. The multivariate analyses were adjusted for sex life, social and demographic characteristics, and health status. Results Nearly half (48.5%) the women younger than 25 years had already undergone premature screening. Women not using contraceptives (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.3–0.5) and those using nonmedicalized contraceptives (condom, spermicide, etc.) (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.6) had premature screening less often than women using birth control pills. Higher risks of premature screening were observed in 20-year-old women (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 2.2–3.3) and in those with more than 5 lifetime partners (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0–3.1), compared respectively with women who were younger and those with 5 or fewer lifetime partners. Conclusion Young women using contraceptives that require a doctor’s prescription are exposed to premature screening more often than those not using contraception and those with nonmedicalized contraceptives.