The benefits of an integrated social medical insurance for health services utilization in rural China: evidence from the China health and retirement longitudinal study.
Aged
China
Facilities and Services Utilization
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Health Services Research
Humans
Insurance, Health
/ organization & administration
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Middle Aged
Rural Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Social Medicine
/ organization & administration
Equity
Health services utilization
Rural China
Social medical insurance
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 05 2021
24 05 2021
Historique:
received:
01
03
2021
accepted:
21
04
2021
entrez:
25
5
2021
pubmed:
26
5
2021
medline:
6
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Improving health equity is a fundamental goal for establishing social health insurance. This article evaluated the benefits of the Integration of Social Medical Insurance (ISMI) policy for health services utilization in rural China. Using the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal study (2011‒2018), we estimated the changes in rates and equity in health services utilization by a generalized linear mixed model, concentration curves, concentration indices, and a horizontal inequity index before and after the introduction of the ISMI policy. For the changes in rates, the generalized linear mixed model showed that the rate of inpatient health services utilization (IHSU) nearly doubled after the introduction of the ISMI policy (8.78 % vs. 16.58 %), while the rate of outpatient health services utilization (OHSU) decreased (20.25 % vs. 16.35 %) after the implementation of the policy. For the changes in inequity, the concentration index of OHSU decreased significantly from - 0.0636 (95 % CL: -0.0846, - 0.0430) before the policy to - 0.0457 (95 % CL: -0.0684, - 0.0229) after it. In addition, the horizontal inequity index decreased from - 0.0284 before the implementation of the policy to - 0.0171 after it, indicating that the inequity of OHSU was further reduced. The concentration index of IHSU increased significantly from - 0.0532 (95 % CL: -0.0868, - 0.0196) before the policy was implemented to - 0.1105 (95 % CL: -0.1333, - 0.0876) afterwards; the horizontal inequity index of IHSU increased from - 0.0066 before policy implementation to - 0.0595 afterwards, indicating that more low-income participants utilized inpatient services after the policy came into effect. The ISMI policy had a positive effect on improving the rate of IHSU but not on the rate of OHSU. This is in line with this policy's original intention of focusing on inpatient service rather than outpatients to achieve its principal goal of preventing catastrophic health expenditure. The ISMI policy had a positive effect on reducing the inequity in OHSU but a negative effect on the decrease in inequity in IHSU. Further research is needed to verify this change. This research on the effects of integration policy implementation may be useful to policy makers and has important policy implications for other developing countries facing similar challenges on the road to universal health coverage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Improving health equity is a fundamental goal for establishing social health insurance. This article evaluated the benefits of the Integration of Social Medical Insurance (ISMI) policy for health services utilization in rural China.
METHODS
Using the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal study (2011‒2018), we estimated the changes in rates and equity in health services utilization by a generalized linear mixed model, concentration curves, concentration indices, and a horizontal inequity index before and after the introduction of the ISMI policy.
RESULTS
For the changes in rates, the generalized linear mixed model showed that the rate of inpatient health services utilization (IHSU) nearly doubled after the introduction of the ISMI policy (8.78 % vs. 16.58 %), while the rate of outpatient health services utilization (OHSU) decreased (20.25 % vs. 16.35 %) after the implementation of the policy. For the changes in inequity, the concentration index of OHSU decreased significantly from - 0.0636 (95 % CL: -0.0846, - 0.0430) before the policy to - 0.0457 (95 % CL: -0.0684, - 0.0229) after it. In addition, the horizontal inequity index decreased from - 0.0284 before the implementation of the policy to - 0.0171 after it, indicating that the inequity of OHSU was further reduced. The concentration index of IHSU increased significantly from - 0.0532 (95 % CL: -0.0868, - 0.0196) before the policy was implemented to - 0.1105 (95 % CL: -0.1333, - 0.0876) afterwards; the horizontal inequity index of IHSU increased from - 0.0066 before policy implementation to - 0.0595 afterwards, indicating that more low-income participants utilized inpatient services after the policy came into effect.
CONCLUSIONS
The ISMI policy had a positive effect on improving the rate of IHSU but not on the rate of OHSU. This is in line with this policy's original intention of focusing on inpatient service rather than outpatients to achieve its principal goal of preventing catastrophic health expenditure. The ISMI policy had a positive effect on reducing the inequity in OHSU but a negative effect on the decrease in inequity in IHSU. Further research is needed to verify this change. This research on the effects of integration policy implementation may be useful to policy makers and has important policy implications for other developing countries facing similar challenges on the road to universal health coverage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34030719
doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01457-8
pii: 10.1186/s12939-021-01457-8
pmc: PMC8145815
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
126Références
Am J Public Health. 2020 Sep;110(9):1328-1331
pubmed: 32673118
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2016 Jan-Feb;22 Suppl 1:S33-42
pubmed: 26599027
Int J Health Serv. 2015;45(4):657-78
pubmed: 25995305
Int J Equity Health. 2018 May 02;17(1):54
pubmed: 29716603
Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387(10025):1274-5
pubmed: 27025430
Glob Health Action. 2015 Sep 18;8:29034
pubmed: 26387506
Am J Public Health. 2011 Apr;101(4):685-92
pubmed: 21330594
Curr Med Sci. 2020 Oct;40(5):858-870
pubmed: 33123901
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Jun 10;18(1):84
pubmed: 31182101
Health Econ. 2009 Jul;18 Suppl 2:S83-96
pubmed: 19551750
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Feb 06;7(7):581-592
pubmed: 29996578
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Mar 27;18(1):77
pubmed: 29580207
Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Jan;22(1):82-91
pubmed: 27775826
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Mar 20;18(1):47
pubmed: 30894183
Reprod Health Matters. 2012 Jun;20(39):50-61
pubmed: 22789082
BMC Public Health. 2020 May 24;20(1):767
pubmed: 32448262
Health Econ. 2005 Apr;14(4):429-32
pubmed: 15495147
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Sep;31(7):853-9
pubmed: 26936094
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Aug 21;11:201
pubmed: 21854641
Int J Equity Health. 2019 May 3;18(1):62
pubmed: 31053074
BMJ. 2019 Jun 21;365:l2378
pubmed: 31227485
J Health Econ. 2009 Jan;28(1):1-19
pubmed: 19058865
Gerontology. 2015;61(3):211-7
pubmed: 25531079
Front Med. 2012 Mar;6(1):79-84
pubmed: 22460451
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020 Feb 14;75(3):661-673
pubmed: 29982726
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 May 10;10:116
pubmed: 20459726
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jul 20;18(1):39
pubmed: 28728550
Global Health. 2020 Jan 13;16(1):6
pubmed: 31931823
Lancet. 2012 Sep 15;380(9846):1011-29
pubmed: 22964159
Lancet. 2019 Sep 28;394(10204):1192-1204
pubmed: 31571602
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Nov 22;17(1):173
pubmed: 30466451
Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(5):545-57
pubmed: 1962226
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Mar 19;5(3):e002086
pubmed: 32257400
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan;245:112715
pubmed: 31825797
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Nov 7;16(1):194
pubmed: 29115955
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jan 18;19(1):86
pubmed: 30658619
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Feb 02;17(1):17
pubmed: 29394933
Soc Sci Med. 2013 May;85:59-65
pubmed: 23540367
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Oct 29;18(1):166
pubmed: 31665019
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 19;18(1):796
pubmed: 30340575
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;43(1):61-8
pubmed: 23243115