| Literature DB >> 26806552 |
Chengchao Zhou1, Qian Long2,3, Jiaying Chen4, Li Xiang5, Qiang Li6, Shenglan Tang7,8, Fei Huang9, Qiang Sun10,11, Henry Lucas12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) often causes catastrophic economic effects on both the individual suffering the disease and their households. A number of studies have analyzed patient and household expenditure on TB care, but there does not appear to be any that have assessed the incidence, intensity and determinants of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) relating to TB care in China. That will be the objective of this paper.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26806552 PMCID: PMC4724959 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-016-0100-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Location of nine study sites in China
Distribution of direct costs and incidence of catastrophic expenditure for TB, China 2012
| Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
| Frequency | 236 | 261 | 250 | 747 |
| Average OOPa costs of TB care (US$)b | ||||
| Mean(SD.) | 1139(2376) | 847(1822) | 1495(1801) | 1156(1678) |
| Median(p25,p75) | 478(398,875) | 462(292,593) | 876(477,2547) | 637(318,1273) |
| Average annual household income (US$) | ||||
| Mean(SD.) | 3540(4037) | 4070(4287) | 7236(6612) | 4962(5358) |
| Median(p25,p75) | 2389(796,4777) | 3185(1455,5175) | 6162(2002,10143) | 3414(1269,6407) |
| Average annual household expenditure (US$) | ||||
| Mean(SD.) | 3045(3140) | 3613(3169) | 4221(3888) | 3641(3449) |
| Median(p25,p75) | 2384(1194,3662) | 3185(1393,4777) | 3185(1592,5573) | 3185(1560,4777) |
| Average capacity to pay (US$)c | ||||
| Mean(SD.) | 2042(2839) | 2494(2761) | 2584(3210) | 2384(2945) |
| Median(p25,p75) | 1306(557,2433) | 1911(804,3463) | 1592(796,3184) | 1592(716,3001) |
| OOP costs share of household income (%) | 32.2 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 23.3 |
| OOP costs share of capacity to pay (%) | 55.8 | 34.0 | 57.9 | 48.5 |
| Households with catastrophic expenditure (%) | ||||
| I = >10 % of household income | 67.8 | 65.1 | 67.6 | 66.8 |
| II = ≥40 % of capacity to pay | 55.8 | 45.1 | 63.7 | 54.7 |
Note: US$ = United States dollar
a: OOP: out-of-pocket
b: A currency exchange rate of Chinese RMB 628 Yuan to US$1 00 Yuan (at the end of 2012)
c: Capacity to pay means that household expenditure minus food expenditure
Household direct costs for TB care in different period or services, China 2012
| Costs in different period(services) | Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ALL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meana | HHI(%)b | Mean | HHI(%) | Mean | HHI(%) | Mean | HHI(%) | |
| Pre-Diagnosis | 349 | 9.9 | 142 | 3.5 | 224 | 3.1 | 235 | 4.7 |
| Post-Diagnosis, Pre-Treatment | 15 | 0.4 | 19 | 0.5 | 55 | 0.8 | 30 | 0.6 |
| In-Patient | 513 | 14.5 | 409 | 10.1 | 649 | 9.0 | 522 | 10.5 |
| Out-Patient | 97 | 2.7 | 252 | 6.2 | 194 | 2.7 | 183 | 3.7 |
| Nutrition Supplementation | 166 | 4.7 | 25 | 0.6 | 373 | 5.2 | 186 | 3.7 |
| Total | 1140 | 32.2 | 847 | 20.8 | 1495 | 20.7 | 1156 | 23.3 |
a: US$, a currency exchange rate of Chinese RMB 628 Yuan to US$100 Yuan( at the end of 2012)
b: Percentage of mean annual household income
Incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure for TB care by household economic status, China 2012
| Catastrophic expenditure | % of household income | % of non-food expenditure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 % | 25 % | 40 % | 10 % | 25 % | 40 % | |
| Head Count (HC,%) | ||||||
| Q1a | 94.1 | 83.2 | 71.8 | 94.8 | 82.2 | 71.2 |
| Q2 | 82.6 | 48.8 | 28.9 | 90.8 | 75.6 | 63.9 |
| Q3 | 63.4 | 30.1 | 19.6 | 84.1 | 59.6 | 50.3 |
| Q4 | 41.3 | 15.9 | 8.9 | 81.5 | 55.1 | 40.8 |
| Total | 66.8 | 42.3 | 31.3 | 87.1 | 66.5 | 54.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean Catastrophic Payment Gap (%) | ||||||
| Q1 | 111.2 | 98.0 | 86.9 | 117.4 | 104.3 | 93.2 |
| Q2 | 32.4 | 22.0 | 16.4 | 67.6 | 55.5 | 45.4 |
| Q3 | 22.6 | 15.2 | 11.5 | 55.9 | 45.6 | 37.5 |
| Q4 | 9.1 | 5.1 | 3.3 | 51.9 | 41.8 | 34.7 |
| Total | 40.8 | 32.8 | 27.7 | 72.0 | 60.9 | 52.1 |
| Mean Positive Gap (%) | ||||||
| Q1 | 119.3 | 121.7 | 129.6 | 124.5 | 129.6 | 136.3 |
| Q2 | 39.3 | 45.6 | 58.0 | 74.9 | 74.6 | 73.3 |
| Q3 | 35.6 | 50.5 | 58.8 | 66.6 | 77.3 | 75.4 |
| Q4 | 22.0 | 32.4 | 37.7 | 63.7 | 76.2 | 85.7 |
| Total | 62.2 | 81.8 | 96.3 | 83.2 | 93.2 | 98.3 |
Note: The bold values indicate statistical significance at 5 % level. a: Quartile 1 (Q1) is the poorest and Quartile 4 (Q4) is the richest
Relationship between patients characteristics and rate of catastrophic expenditures for TB, China 2012
| Variable | Rate of Ia (n = 747) | Rate of II (n = 728)b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | Χ2 |
| n (%) | Χ2 |
| |
| Age(years) | 23.07 |
| 27.66 |
| ||
| ≤40 | 56(48.7) | 43(38.7) | ||||
| 41–59 | 191(66.6) | 139(49.3) | ||||
| ≥60 | 252(73.0) | 216(64.5) | ||||
| Gender | 1.14 | 0.286 | 0.28 | 0.600 | ||
| Male | 382(67.9) | 296(54.1) | ||||
| Female | 117(63.6) | 102(56.4) | ||||
| Type of TB case | 3.39 | 0.066 | 0.60 | 0.437 | ||
| New or never treated | 390(65.2) | 314(54.0) | ||||
| Relapse or previously treated | 109(73.2) | 84(57.5) | ||||
| Residence | 5.06 |
| 0.36 | 0.549 | ||
| Rural | 468(67.9) | 369(55.0) | ||||
| Urban | 31(53.4) | 29(50.9) | ||||
| Education | 12.90 |
| 14.31 |
| ||
| None | 108(75.0) | 84(61.3) | ||||
| Primary school | 175(70.9) | 149(61.3) | ||||
| Junior school | 161(61.9) | 122(48.0) | ||||
| Senior school or above | 55(57.3) | 43(45.7) | ||||
| Marital status | 3.58 | 0.167 | 4.46 | 0.108 | ||
| Single | 399(66.3) | 319(54.1) | ||||
| Married | 31(59.6) | 23(46.0) | ||||
| Bereft of spousec | 69(74.2) | 56(63.6) | ||||
| Employment status | 26.77 |
| 30.37 |
| ||
| Unemployment | 40(81.6) | 31(64.6) | ||||
| Employment | 235(58.8) | 177(45.3) | ||||
| Retired | 193(74.2) | 167(66.3) | ||||
| Losing work abilities | 31(81.6) | 23(62.2) | ||||
| Health insuranced | 8.03 |
| 3.02 | 0.389 | ||
| MIUE | 24(49.0) | 22(44.9) | ||||
| NMCS | 453(68.2) | 361(55.8) | ||||
| MIUR | 15(68.2) | 10(47.6) | ||||
| Self-paye | 7(58.3) | 5(45.5) | ||||
| Household size | 46.13 |
| 25.82 |
| ||
| <4 | 360(75.6) | 287(61.7) | ||||
| ≥8 | 139(51.3) | 111(42.2) | ||||
| As % of household incomef | 16.99 |
| 4.08 |
| ||
| <50 % | 230(59.9) | 191(50.9) | ||||
| ≥50 % | 269(74.1) | 205(58.4) | ||||
| Minimum living security householdg | 15.66 |
| 1.56 | 0.212 | ||
| Yes 93(83.0) | 65(60.2) | |||||
| No 406(63.9) | 333(53.7) | |||||
| In-patient service | 81.36 |
| 50.28 |
| ||
| Yes 331(80.9) | 265(66.6) | |||||
| No 168(49.7) | 133(40.3) | |||||
Note: The bold values indicate statistical significance at 5 % level. a: I >10 % of household income, II ≥ 40 % of capacity to pay (non-food expenditure)
b: Of the 747 participants,19 missed household or non-food expenditure data
c: 17 divorced participants were categorized into the group “Bereft of spouse”
d: MIUE: Medical Insurance for Urban Employees Scheme
NCMS New Cooperative Medical Scheme
MIUR Medical Insurance for Urban Residents Scheme
e: 3 participants covered by commercial insurance were categorized into the group of “self-pay”
f: It means patient annual income as % of annual household income in 2012
g: Minimum living security households were authorized by the local civil affairs department if annual income per person was lower than the minimum living standard
Multivariate logistic regression model of determinants of catastrophic expenditure for TB care, China 2012
| Variable | Model Ia | Model IIb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR adj | 95 % CI |
| OR adj | 95 % CI |
| |
| Age(years) | ||||||
| ≤40 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| 41–59 | 2.28 | 1.31–3.97 |
| 1.49 | 0.88–2.52 | 0.141 |
| ≥60 | 2.26 | 1.28–4.54 |
| 2.03 | 1.06–3.88 |
|
| Residence | ||||||
| Rural | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| Urban | 0.60 | 0.24–1.46 | 0.258 | 1.49 | 0.65–3.43 | 0.342 |
| Education | ||||||
| None | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| Primary school | 1.03 | 0.60–1.77 | 0.913 | 1.37 | 0.85–2.21 | 0.191 |
| Junior school | 0.76 | 0.44–1.33 | 0.338 | 0.84 | 0.52–1.36 | 0.474 |
| Senior school or above | 0.88 | 0.42–1.82 | 0.725 | 0.97 | 0.51–1.84 | 0.917 |
| Employment status | ||||||
| Unemployment | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| Employment | 0.21 | 0.09–0.49 |
| 0.38 | 0.19–0.76 |
|
| Retired | 0.29 | 0.11–0.80 |
| 0.56 | 0.24–1.29 | 0.175 |
| Losing work abilities | 0.49 | 0.14–1.70 | 0.261 | 0.58 | 0.22–1.57 | 0.285 |
| Health insurancec | ||||||
| MIUE | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| NMCS | 2.55 | 1.09–5.95 |
| 2.57 | 1.16–5.68 |
|
| MIUR | 2.12 | 0.62–7.29 | 0.234 | 0.86 | 0.28–2.68 | 0.800 |
| Self-pay | 2.01 | 0.45–8.86 | 0.359 | 1.49 | 0.35–6.41 | 0.595 |
| Household size | ||||||
| <4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| ≥ | 0.42 | 0.28–0.62 |
| 0.50 | 0.34–0.72 |
|
| As % of household incomed | ||||||
| <50 % | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| ≥50 % | 2.02 | 1.35–3.02 |
| 1.23 | 0.86–1.76 | 0.262 |
| Minimum living security householde | ||||||
| Yes | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| No | 0.47 | 0.26–0.86 |
| 1.12 | 0.71–1.78 | 0.629 |
| In-patient service | ||||||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| Yes | 5.42 | 3.71–7.92 |
| 3.17 | 2.27–4.41 |
|
Note: The bold values indicate statistical significance at 5 % level. a: I >10 % of household income, II ≥40 % of capacity to pay(non-food expenditure)
b: Of the 747 participants, 19 missed household expenditure or non-food expenditure data, the participants included in Model II is 728
c: MIUE: Medical Insurance for Urban Employees Scheme
NCMS: New Cooperative Medical Scheme
MIUR: Medical Insurance for Urban Residents Scheme
d: It means patient annual income as % of annual household income in 2012;
e: Minimum living security households were authorized by the local civil affairs department if annual income per person was lower than the minimum living standard