The impact of long-term care insurance in China on beneficiaries and caregivers: A systematic review.
China
beneficiaries and caregivers
long-term care insurance
systematic review
Journal
Journal of global health economics and policy
ISSN: 2806-6073
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health Econ Policy
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 9918284149406676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
entrez:
27
1
2022
pubmed:
28
1
2022
medline:
28
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
China's long-term care insurance (LTCI) policy has been minimally evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of China's LTCI pilot on beneficiaries and their caregivers. This review is based on a search of peer-reviewed studies in English (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], VIP, Wanfang) databases from January 2016 through July 2020, with all studies published in English or Chinese included. We included quantitative analyses of beneficiary-level data that assessed the impact of LTCI on beneficiaries and their caregivers, with no restriction placed on the outcomes studied. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. One study was a randomised trial and two used quasi-experimental approaches. Four studies examined LTCI's effect on beneficiaries' quality of life, physical pain, and health service utilisation; one study reported the effect on beneficiaries' healthcare expenditures; and one study evaluated the impact on caregivers' care tasks. These studies generally found LTCI to be associated with an improvement in patients' quality of life (including decreased physical pain), a reduction in the number of outpatient visits and hospitalisations, decreased patient-level health expenditures (e.g. one study reported a reduction in the length of stay, inpatient expenditures, and health insurance expenditures in tertiary hospitals by 41.0%, 17.7%, and 11.4%, respectively), and reduced informal care tasks for caregivers. In addition, four out of four studies that evaluated this outcome found that beneficiaries' overall satisfaction with LTCI was high. The current evidence base for the effects of LTCI in China on beneficiaries and their caregivers is sparse. Nonetheless, the existing studies suggest that LTCI has positive effects on beneficiaries and their caregivers. Further rigorous research on the impacts of LTCI in China is needed to inform the future expansion of the program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
China's long-term care insurance (LTCI) policy has been minimally evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of China's LTCI pilot on beneficiaries and their caregivers.
METHODS
METHODS
This review is based on a search of peer-reviewed studies in English (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], VIP, Wanfang) databases from January 2016 through July 2020, with all studies published in English or Chinese included. We included quantitative analyses of beneficiary-level data that assessed the impact of LTCI on beneficiaries and their caregivers, with no restriction placed on the outcomes studied.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. One study was a randomised trial and two used quasi-experimental approaches. Four studies examined LTCI's effect on beneficiaries' quality of life, physical pain, and health service utilisation; one study reported the effect on beneficiaries' healthcare expenditures; and one study evaluated the impact on caregivers' care tasks. These studies generally found LTCI to be associated with an improvement in patients' quality of life (including decreased physical pain), a reduction in the number of outpatient visits and hospitalisations, decreased patient-level health expenditures (e.g. one study reported a reduction in the length of stay, inpatient expenditures, and health insurance expenditures in tertiary hospitals by 41.0%, 17.7%, and 11.4%, respectively), and reduced informal care tasks for caregivers. In addition, four out of four studies that evaluated this outcome found that beneficiaries' overall satisfaction with LTCI was high.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence base for the effects of LTCI in China on beneficiaries and their caregivers is sparse. Nonetheless, the existing studies suggest that LTCI has positive effects on beneficiaries and their caregivers. Further rigorous research on the impacts of LTCI in China is needed to inform the future expansion of the program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35083471
doi: 10.52872/001c.29559
pmc: PMC8788994
mid: NIHMS1757325
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR003143
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form at (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Dec;19(9):1213-1223
pubmed: 29626266
Lancet. 2019 Sep 28;394(10204):1145-1158
pubmed: 31248666
Health Econ. 2009 Nov;18(11):1322-38
pubmed: 19206085
J Health Econ. 2015 Jul;42:174-85
pubmed: 25968112
Trials. 2010 Mar 24;11:32
pubmed: 20334632
Demography. 2007 May;44(2):265-88
pubmed: 17583305
Health Econ. 2015 Sep;24(9):1178-91
pubmed: 26033403
Lancet. 2016 Jan 16;387(10015):251-72
pubmed: 26510778
Health Policy. 2015 Oct;119(10):1330-7
pubmed: 26305121
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020 Aug 25;13:863-875
pubmed: 32922026
Lancet. 2013 Jun 8;381(9882):1987-2015
pubmed: 23746901
J Health Econ. 2006 Jul;25(4):674-701
pubmed: 16426689
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jan 1;95(1):18-26
pubmed: 28053361
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016 Jul-Aug;65:122-7
pubmed: 27017418
J Health Econ. 2013 Dec;32(6):1205-13
pubmed: 24189449
J Health Econ. 2015 Mar;40:122-31
pubmed: 25647006
J Health Econ. 2015 Sep;43:45-55
pubmed: 26184382
Lancet. 2013 Jun 8;381(9882):2016-23
pubmed: 23746902
J Health Econ. 2004 Nov;23(6):1159-80
pubmed: 15556241
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 24;17(8):
pubmed: 32344522
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan 20;247:112812
pubmed: 32066015
Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2002;54(4):267-90
pubmed: 12243447
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018 Jan;18(1):26-32
pubmed: 28776904
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 11;16(20):
pubmed: 31614417
Health Policy. 2021 Jan;125(1):22-26
pubmed: 33189411
Lancet. 2020 Oct 24;396(10259):1362-1372
pubmed: 34338215
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019 Jan;19(1):51-55
pubmed: 30556370
Lancet. 2011 Sep 24;378(9797):1183-92
pubmed: 21885099
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019 Oct;34(4):e1661-e1674
pubmed: 31385373
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014 Jan-Feb;58(1):130-3
pubmed: 24035002
Health Econ. 2015 Mar;24 Suppl 1:32-44
pubmed: 25760581
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):117-22
pubmed: 23587340
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Aug;258:113081
pubmed: 32540515
J Health Econ. 2007 May 1;26(3):536-59
pubmed: 17098311
J Clin Nurs. 2017 May;26(9-10):1291-1300
pubmed: 27681477
Health Policy. 2003 Jun;64(3):325-33
pubmed: 12745171
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;34(1):97-105
pubmed: 30246886
Milbank Q. 2000;78(3):375-401, 340
pubmed: 11028189