| Literature DB >> 31336947 |
Junnan Jiang1, Henry Lucas2, Qian Long3, Yanjiao Xin1, Li Xiang4, Shenglan Tang5.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major social and public health problem in China. The "China-Gates TB Project" started in 2012, and one of its objectives was to reduce the financial burden on TB patients and to improve access to quality TB care. The aims of this study were to determine if the project had positive impacts on improving health service utilization.Entities:
Keywords: China–Gates TB Project; Health care services; Propensity score; Utilization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31336947 PMCID: PMC6678436 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16142494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Tuberculosis financing and payment model of the China–Gates TB program Phase II.
| Prospective | Contents |
|---|---|
| Outpatient services | Increased the reimbursement rate to 80%, patients need to pay up to 780 CNY for the entire treatment period. |
| Inpatient services | Case-based payments, increased the reimbursement rate to 80%, patients need to pay up to 900 CNY/1800 CNY (smear negative) for the entire treatment period. |
| Subsides | Supply nutrition and transportation assistance for eligible low-income households: 60 CNY/ month for nutrition and 10 CNY/month for transportation. |
| Others | Free sputum smear and chest X-ray examination for patients with suspected symptoms of tuberculosis, clinical pathways, and case management. |
Figure 1Location of sample counties in Yichang city. Data source: Map World, https://zhfw.tianditu.gov.cn/.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.
| No Item | Guide Questions/Description |
|---|---|
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |
| Personal Characteristics | |
| 1. Interviewer/facilitator | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 2. Credentials | N/A |
| 3. Occupation | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 4. Gender | N/A |
| 5. Experience and training | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| Relationship with participants | |
| 6. Relationship established | N/A |
| 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 8. Interviewer characteristics | N/A |
| Domain 2: Study design | |
| Theoretical framework | |
| 9. Methodological orientation and Theory | Methods, Analysis, paragraph 4 |
| 10. Sampling | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 11. Method of approach | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 12. Sample size | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 13. Non-participation | N/A |
| Setting | |
| 14. Setting of data collection | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 15. Presence of non-participants | N/A |
| 16. Description of sample | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| Data collection | |
| 17. Interview guide | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 18. Repeat interviews | N/A |
| 19.Audio/visual recording | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 20. Field notes | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 21. Duration | Methods, Qualitative data collection, paragraph 1 |
| 22. Data saturation | Methods, Analysis, paragraph 4 |
| 23. Transcripts returned | N/A |
| Domain 3: Analysis and findings | |
| Data analysis | |
| 24. Number of data coders | N/A |
| 25. Description of the coding tree | N/A |
| 26. Derivation of themes | Methods, Analysis, paragraph 4 |
| 27. Software | Methods, Analysis, paragraph 4 |
| 28. Participant checking | N/A |
| Reporting | |
| 29. Quotations presented | Results, Demographic, socio-economic characteristics of TB patients, paragraph 3 |
| 30.Data and findings consistent | Discussion, paragraph 5 |
| 31.Clarity of major themes | Results, The decision to use health services, paragraph 3,4 |
| 32.Clarity of minor themes | N/A |
Descriptive statistics of variables in the baseline and final stage.
| Variables | Baseline ( | Final Evaluation ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Male | 189 (72.7) | 199 (73.7) | 0.793 |
| Female | 71 (27.3) | 71 (26.3) | |
|
| 53.5 (15.0) | 56.9 (13.9) | 0.006 |
|
| |||
| Married | 197 (75.8) | 209 (77.4) | 0.656 |
| Others | 63 (24.2) | 61 (22.6) | |
|
| |||
| New patient | 223 (85.8) | 231 (85.6) | 0.944 |
| Recurrent patient | 37 (14.2) | 39 (14.4) | |
|
| |||
| None | 30 (11.5) | 37 (13.7) | 0.655 |
| Primary | 87 (33.5) | 99 (36.7) | |
| Secondary | 107 (41.2) | 101 (37.4) | |
| High school and above | 36 (13.8) | 33 (12.2) | |
|
| |||
| Currently working (including farming) | 164 (63.1) | 153 (56.7) | 0.142 |
| Others | 96 (36.9) | 117 (43.3) | |
|
| |||
| UEBMI | 6 (2.3) | 29 (10.8) | 0.000 |
| NCMS | 242 (93.1) | 217 (80.7) | |
| URBMI | 8 (3.1) | 20 (7.4) | |
| other insurance | 4 (1.5) | 3 (1.1) | |
|
| |||
| 1st (poorest) | 54 (20.8) | 75 (27.8) | 0.128 |
| 2nd | 63 (24.2) | 69 (25.5) | |
| 3rd | 68 (26.2) | 68 (25.2) | |
| 4th Quartile | 75 (28.8) | 58 (21.5) | |
|
| |||
| ZJ | 89 (34.2) | 92 (34.1) | 0.224 |
| YD | 90 (34.6) | 110 (40.7) | |
| WF | 81 (31.2) | 68 (25.2) | |
|
| |||
| Outpatient visits (mean (Std)) | 4.6 (2.0) | 5.6 (1.4) | 0.000 a |
| Inpatient care | 87 (33.5) | 205 (75.9) | 0.000 |
a: The t test.
The pre-post health utilizations and cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis (TB) patients by counties.
| County | Time | Outpatient Visits (a) | Outpatient Funds Expenditure /CNY (b) | Cost-Effective (= a/b*1000) | Inpatient Care (c) | Inpatient Funds Expenditure/CNY (d) | Cost-Effective (= c/d*1000) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZJ | Pre- | 5.81 | 353 | 0.054 | 0.47 | 3322 | 0.374 |
| Post- | 5.96 | 3132 | 0.83 | 4284 | |||
| YD | Pre- | 4.78 | - | - | 0.12 | 2619 | 0.440 |
| Post- | 5.87 | 3022 | 0.80 | 4163 | |||
| WF | Pre- | 3.01 | 524 | 2.435 | 0.42 | 3471 | 0.094 |
| Post- | 4.59 | 1173 | 0.60 | 5386 |
Figure 2Overlay of Kernel density distributions of baseline and final stage propensity scores before and after propensity score matching.
Propensity score matching results on average treatment effect (ATT)in TB health care utilization.
| Outcome Variables | Observed Coefficient (ATT) | Bootstrap Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outpatient visits | 1.059 | 0.150 | 0.000 |
| Inpatient care | 0.431 | 0.042 | 0.000 |
Propensity score matching results on average treatment effect (ATT) in TB health care utilization by income quartiles.
| Outcome Variables | Income Level | Observed Coefficient (ATT) | Bootstrap Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outpatient visits | 1st (poorest) | 1.209 | 0.366 | 0.001 |
| 2nd | 1.400 | 0.471 | 0.003 | |
| 3rd | 0.454 | 0.255 | 0.075 | |
| 4th Quartile | 1.037 | 0.377 | 0.006 | |
| Inpatient care | 1st (poorest) | 0.416 | 0.103 | 0.000 |
| 2nd | 0.431 | 0.104 | 0.000 | |
| 3rd | 0.324 | 0.103 | 0.002 | |
| 4th Quartile | 0.377 | 0.104 | 0.000 |
Propensity score matching results on average treatment effect (ATT) in TB health care utilization by counties.
| Outcome Variables | County | Observed Coefficient (ATT) | Bootstrap Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outpatient visits | ZJ | 0.188 | 0.338 | 0.578 |
| YD | 1.094 | 0.183 | 0.000 | |
| WF | 1.491 | 0.346 | 0.000 | |
| Inpatient care | ZJ | 0.343 | 0.079 | 0.000 |
| YD | 0.679 | 0.058 | 0.000 | |
| WF | 0.224 | 0.100 | 0.025 |