Differences in medical costs among urban lung cancer patients with different health insurance schemes: a retrospective study.
Health insurance
Health policy
Lung cancer
Medical costs
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 May 2022
07 May 2022
Historique:
received:
14
11
2021
accepted:
15
04
2022
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health insurance plays a significant role in reducing the financial burden for lung cancer patients. However, limited research exists regarding the differences in medical costs for lung cancer patients with different insurance schemes across different cities. We aimed to assess disparities in lung cancer patients' costs by insurance type and city-specific insurance type. Claim data of China Urban Employees' Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) and Urban Residents' Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI) between 2010 and 2016 were employed to investigate differences in medical costs. This study primarily applied descriptive analysis and a generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and a log link. In total, 92,856 lung cancer patients with inpatient records were identified, with Renminbi (RMB) 11,276 [6322-20,850] (median [interquartile range]) medical costs for the UEBMI group and RMB 8303 [4492-14,823] for the URBMI group. Out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for the UEBMI group was RMB 2143 [1108-4506] and RMB 2975 [1367-6275] for the URBMI group. The UEBMI group also had significantly higher drug costs, medical service costs, and medical consumable costs, compared to the URBMI group. Regarding city-specific insurances, medical costs for the UEBMI and the URBMI lung cancer patients in Shanghai were RMB 9771 [5183-16,623] and RMB 9741 [5924-16,067], respectively. In Xianyang, the medical costs for UEBMI and URBMI patients were RMB 11,398 [6880-20,648] and RMB 9853 [5370-24,674], respectively. The regression results showed that the UEBMI group had 27.31% fewer OOP expenses than the URBMI group did, while patients in Xiangyang and Xianyang had 39.53 and 35.53% fewer OOP expenses, respectively, compared to patients in Shanghai. Compared with the URBMI patients, the UEBMI lung cancer patients obtained more or even better health services and had reduced financial burden. The differences in insurances among cities were greater, compared to those among insurances within cities, and the differences in OOP expenses between cities were greater compared to those between UEBMI and URBMI. Our results called for further reform of China's fragmented insurance schemes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health insurance plays a significant role in reducing the financial burden for lung cancer patients. However, limited research exists regarding the differences in medical costs for lung cancer patients with different insurance schemes across different cities. We aimed to assess disparities in lung cancer patients' costs by insurance type and city-specific insurance type.
METHODS
METHODS
Claim data of China Urban Employees' Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) and Urban Residents' Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI) between 2010 and 2016 were employed to investigate differences in medical costs. This study primarily applied descriptive analysis and a generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and a log link.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 92,856 lung cancer patients with inpatient records were identified, with Renminbi (RMB) 11,276 [6322-20,850] (median [interquartile range]) medical costs for the UEBMI group and RMB 8303 [4492-14,823] for the URBMI group. Out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for the UEBMI group was RMB 2143 [1108-4506] and RMB 2975 [1367-6275] for the URBMI group. The UEBMI group also had significantly higher drug costs, medical service costs, and medical consumable costs, compared to the URBMI group. Regarding city-specific insurances, medical costs for the UEBMI and the URBMI lung cancer patients in Shanghai were RMB 9771 [5183-16,623] and RMB 9741 [5924-16,067], respectively. In Xianyang, the medical costs for UEBMI and URBMI patients were RMB 11,398 [6880-20,648] and RMB 9853 [5370-24,674], respectively. The regression results showed that the UEBMI group had 27.31% fewer OOP expenses than the URBMI group did, while patients in Xiangyang and Xianyang had 39.53 and 35.53% fewer OOP expenses, respectively, compared to patients in Shanghai.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with the URBMI patients, the UEBMI lung cancer patients obtained more or even better health services and had reduced financial burden. The differences in insurances among cities were greater, compared to those among insurances within cities, and the differences in OOP expenses between cities were greater compared to those between UEBMI and URBMI. Our results called for further reform of China's fragmented insurance schemes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35524258
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07957-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07957-9
pmc: PMC9077891
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
612Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2018 Nov 23;12:72
pubmed: 30479658
Health Serv Manage Res. 2017 Nov;30(4):213-218
pubmed: 28816522
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Aug 16;16(16):
pubmed: 31426371
Int J Equity Health. 2016 Jul 22;15(1):116
pubmed: 27449349
Cancer Med. 2018 Aug;7(8):4036-4043
pubmed: 29923330
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Mar 15;14(3):
pubmed: 28294998
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0239844
pubmed: 33126237
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jun 10;11:719
pubmed: 32587512
Cancer Commun (Lond). 2020 May;40(5):205-210
pubmed: 32359212
Trop Med Int Health. 2019 Sep;24(9):1078-1087
pubmed: 31299130
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan;245:112715
pubmed: 31825797
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Nov 14;5(11):
pubmed: 27930356
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 25;11:80
pubmed: 23531108
Cent Eur J Public Health. 2017 Dec;25 Suppl 2:S59-S63
pubmed: 29524371
BMC Cancer. 2020 Mar 24;20(1):250
pubmed: 32209058
Lancet. 2015 Oct 10;386(10002):1484-92
pubmed: 26466052
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 14;15(2):e0229090
pubmed: 32059049
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Circulation. 2018 May 29;137(22):2344-2356
pubmed: 29449338
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013 Feb;33(2):98-106, 2 p preceding 98
pubmed: 23525339
PLoS Med. 2014 Apr 22;11(4):e1001631
pubmed: 24756146
BMC Public Health. 2019 Dec 30;19(1):1761
pubmed: 31888591
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Sep 10;19(1):654
pubmed: 31500617
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Feb 02;17(1):17
pubmed: 29394933
Curr Diabetes Rev. 2021;17(1):11-20
pubmed: 31916517
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 10;10(10):e040437
pubmed: 33040017
Lancet. 2012 Nov 24;380(9856):1840-50
pubmed: 23079588
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Aug 03;16(15):
pubmed: 31382609
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 Sep 23;31:63
pubmed: 29445692
Thorac Cancer. 2015 May;6(3):338-45
pubmed: 26273381
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Oct 29;18(1):166
pubmed: 31665019
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Sep;7(9):1490-7
pubmed: 22837273
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013 Feb;33(2):122-30, 9 p preceding 122
pubmed: 23525342