| Literature DB >> 21718506 |
Peiyuan Qiu1, Yang Yang, Juying Zhang, Xiao Ma.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: China has been experiencing the largest rural to urban migration in history. Rural-to-urban migrants are those who leave their hometown for another place in order to work or live without changing their hukou status, which is a household registration system in China, categorizing people as either rural residents or urban residents. Rural-to-urban migrants typically find better job opportunities in destination cities, and these pay higher salaries than available in their home regions. This has served to improve the enrollment rates in the New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) of rural families, protecting households from falling into poverty due to diseases. However, current regulations stipulate that people who are registered in China's rural hukou can only participate in their local NCMS, which in turn poses barriers when migrants seek medical services in the health facilities of their destination cities. To examine this issue in greater depth, this study examined the associations between migration, economic status of rural households, and NCMS enrollment rate, as well as NCMS utilization of rural-to-urban migrants.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21718506 PMCID: PMC3142513 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Basic information of the three counties
| Total population (N) | 650,000 | 860,000 | 102,000,0 |
| Rural population (N) | 540,000 | 600,000 | 830,000 |
| Average annual income of rural population (RMB/capital year) | 2,328 | 2,889 | 3,400 |
| Number of households involved in the study (N) | 3,043 | 2,969 | 3,085 |
| Number of individuals involved in the study (N) | 12,712 | 11,079 | 12,929 |
Figure 1The distribution of household economic status by county. An asset index was constructed by using principal component analysis (PCA) to classify household economic status. Eleven variables from Section A of the questionnaire were used to calculate the PCA (Appendix A). The first principal component (eigenvalue: 3.315, account for 30.14%) was used to quintile the household economic status (Appendix B). As a result, each household was assigned into one of the five quintiles.
Demographic characteristics of non-migrants and migrants
| Age (S.D) | 42.7(23.4) | 28.9(10.5) | |
| Gender (%) | Male | 48.4 | 60.0 |
| Female | 51.6 | 40.0 | |
| Marriage Status (%) | Unmarried | 28.4 | 40.2 |
| Married | 62.9 | 58.4 | |
| Divorced | 0.3 | 0.9 | |
| Widowed | 8.4 | 0.5 | |
| Highest level of education (%) | Illiteracy | 36.7 | 3.2 |
| Primary school | 37.4 | 29.8 | |
| Middle school | 20.5 | 49.2 | |
| High school | 5.1 | 12.9 | |
| College and above | 0.3 | 4.9 | |
a. Migrant here is defined as an individual who move from the place where his/her hukou is to another place for at least six months in order to work or live in 2006.
Household economic status and enrollment in the NCMS of households with different migration characteristics
| Household economic status | Richest | 11.3 | 23.9 | 23.2 | 20.0 |
| Second | 14.7 | 22.6 | 20.7 | 20.0 | |
| Middle | 17.7 | 20.3 | 23.6 | 20.0 | |
| Fourth | 21.9 | 19.6 | 17.5 | 20.0 | |
| Poorest | 34.3 | 13.6 | 15.0 | 20.0 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| Did you join the NCMS? | Yes | 89.2 | 90.4 | 86.9 | 89.5 |
| No | 10.8 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 10.5 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Results of ordinal logistic regression on household economic status
| Household unemployment rate | 2.334 (1.999,2.723) | |
| Household migration rate | 0.687 (0.582,0.813) | |
| Household head's education level | 0.925 (0.876,0.977) | |
| Household gender ratio | 1.201 (0.962,1.499) | 0.105 |
| Household disease burden | 1.617 (1.450,1.804) | |
| Household size | 0.721 (0.701,0.741) | |
Results of binary logistic regression on enrollment in the NCMS
| Household migration rate | 0.402 (0.298,0.543) | |
| Household head's education level | 0.938 (0.845,1.041) | 0.225 |
| Household disease burden | 1.120 (0.926,1.355) | 0.242 |
| Household economic status | 0.828 (0.786,0.873) | |
| Household size | 1.139 (1.081,1.200) | |
Use of hospital care by type, NCMS reimbursement rate, and reasons of not receiving NCMS reimbursement by non-migrants and migrants receiving inpatient services in 2006
| Use of hospital care by type | Local township health care centers | 39.0 | 17.8 |
| Local county level hospitals | 43.5 | 27.9 | |
| Out-of-county hospitals (city level and above hospitals, private hospitals) | 17.5 | 54.3 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| NCMS reimbursement ratesa | 0% | 24.6 | 55.2 |
| > 0% and ≤ 10% | 16.0 | 9.3 | |
| > 10% and ≤ 20% | 18.1 | 16.0 | |
| > 20% and ≤ 30% | 19.2 | 8.6 | |
| > 30% and ≤ 40% | 15.0 | 7.1 | |
| > 40% | 7.0 | 3.7 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| Reasons of not receiving NCMS reimbursement after inpatient servicesa | Deductible fee is higher than inpatient services expenditure | 8.6 | 4.1 |
| Most of the expenses could not be covered by the NCMS | 9.5 | 2.7 | |
| Stay in a hospital that is not designated by the NCMS | 33.6 | 64.9 | |
| Lack of knowledge of the NCMS policies | 27.3 | 12.2 | |
| Encountering difficulties obtaining reimbursement | 18.6 | 12.8 | |
| Othersb | 2.3 | 3.4 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
a. Only people who had the NCMS in 2006 were included in the analysis.
b. Others include other people paying for the inpatient expenses, and other insurance paying for inpatient expenses