Urban-rural differences in healthcare utilization among beneficiaries in China's new cooperative medical scheme.
China, CHARLS 2015.
Healthcare expenditure
Healthcare utilization
New cooperative medical scheme
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 08 2021
06 08 2021
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
accepted:
29
07
2021
entrez:
7
8
2021
pubmed:
8
8
2021
medline:
12
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) is a voluntary social health insurance program launched in 2002 for rural Chinese residents where 80% of people were without health insurance of any kind. Over time, several concerns about this program have been raised related to healthcare utilization disparities for NCMS participants in urban versus rural regions. Our study uses 2015 national survey data to evaluate the extent of these urban and rural disparities among NCMS beneficiaries. Data for our study are based on the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) for 2015. Our 12,190-patient sample are urban and rural patients insured by NCMS. We use logistic regression analyses to compare the extent of disparities for urban and rural residence of NCMS beneficiaries in (1) whether individuals received any inpatient or outpatient care during 2015 and (2) for those individuals that did receive care, the extent of the variation in the number of inpatient and outpatient visits among each group. Our regression results reveal that for urban and rural NCMS patients in 2015, there were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient utilization for either of the dependent variables - 1) whether or not the patient had a visit during the last year, or 2) for those that had a visit, the number of visits they had. Patient characteristics: age, sex, employment, health status, chronic conditions, and per capita annual expenditures - all had significant impacts on whether or not there was an inpatient or outpatient visit but less influence on the number of inpatient or outpatient visits. For both access to inpatient and outpatient facilities and the level of utilization of these facilities, our results reveal that both urban and rural NCMS patients have similar levels of resource utilization. These results from 2015 indicate that utilization angst about urban and rural disparities in NCMS patients do not appear to be a significant concern.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) is a voluntary social health insurance program launched in 2002 for rural Chinese residents where 80% of people were without health insurance of any kind. Over time, several concerns about this program have been raised related to healthcare utilization disparities for NCMS participants in urban versus rural regions. Our study uses 2015 national survey data to evaluate the extent of these urban and rural disparities among NCMS beneficiaries.
METHODS
Data for our study are based on the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) for 2015. Our 12,190-patient sample are urban and rural patients insured by NCMS. We use logistic regression analyses to compare the extent of disparities for urban and rural residence of NCMS beneficiaries in (1) whether individuals received any inpatient or outpatient care during 2015 and (2) for those individuals that did receive care, the extent of the variation in the number of inpatient and outpatient visits among each group.
RESULTS
Our regression results reveal that for urban and rural NCMS patients in 2015, there were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient utilization for either of the dependent variables - 1) whether or not the patient had a visit during the last year, or 2) for those that had a visit, the number of visits they had. Patient characteristics: age, sex, employment, health status, chronic conditions, and per capita annual expenditures - all had significant impacts on whether or not there was an inpatient or outpatient visit but less influence on the number of inpatient or outpatient visits.
CONCLUSIONS
For both access to inpatient and outpatient facilities and the level of utilization of these facilities, our results reveal that both urban and rural NCMS patients have similar levels of resource utilization. These results from 2015 indicate that utilization angst about urban and rural disparities in NCMS patients do not appear to be a significant concern.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34362340
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11573-3
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11573-3
pmc: PMC8348873
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1519Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Infect Dis Poverty. 2016 Jan 28;5:8
pubmed: 26818723
Int J Equity Health. 2014 May 16;13:38
pubmed: 24885046
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 8;8(2):e019442
pubmed: 29439077
J Health Econ. 2009 Jan;28(1):1-19
pubmed: 19058865
Int J Equity Health. 2017 May 23;16(1):44
pubmed: 28532418
BMC Public Health. 2011 Jun 30;11:520
pubmed: 21718506
BMC Public Health. 2012 Oct 12;12:868
pubmed: 23061720
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):112
pubmed: 32050962
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jan 18;19(1):86
pubmed: 30658619
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Sep 5;17(1):137
pubmed: 30185181
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Mar 19;10:69
pubmed: 20298613
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015 Mar;27(2):NP897-902
pubmed: 20702447
Lancet. 2015 Oct 10;386(10002):1484-92
pubmed: 26466052
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Sep 15;17(1):144
pubmed: 30219075
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 May 10;10:116
pubmed: 20459726
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(2):201-9
pubmed: 19019519
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jul 26;14(8):
pubmed: 28933772
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Oct 16;2(4):e000477
pubmed: 29082027
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019 Oct;24(4):279-287
pubmed: 31007065
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Jun 14;18(1):90
pubmed: 31200711
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e46932
pubmed: 23144794
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2;372(14):1281-5
pubmed: 25830419
Soc Sci Med. 2013 May;85:59-65
pubmed: 23540367
J Ambul Care Manage. 1998 Oct;21(4):29-52
pubmed: 10387436
Health Econ. 2009 Jan;18(1):103-19
pubmed: 18283715
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 5;14(4):e0214382
pubmed: 30951536
BMC Public Health. 2019 Apr 23;19(1):421
pubmed: 31014288
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2003 Oct;3(5):541-9
pubmed: 19807388
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;43(1):61-8
pubmed: 23243115