| Literature DB >> 31405176 |
Yongqing Dong1,2, Liping Fu1,2, Ronghui Tan3,4, Liman Ding1,2.
Abstract
Since the initiation of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) in 2003 in China, medical reimbursement plays an increasingly important role in reducing the familial burden of critical illness healthcare in rural China. However, the current medical reimbursement system is operated based on prefecture-level administrative boundaries, which may prevent some residents from accessing higher-quality medical resources. Using a reliable and high-accuracy geographic information system (GIS) dataset, this study investigates whether this reimbursement system restricts rural residents from freely seeking out medical services in the Hubei Province by employing a two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA). Results show that there are spatial differences between the catchment area of different graded medical centers and prefecture-level administrative boundaries. Spatial reimbursement boundaries should be readjusted so that most rural residents receive equitable coverage by the system and reimburse their medical expenses in a more convenient way. Therefore, we argue that the local government should delineate the spatial region of the medical reimbursement for rural residents according to an assessment of their spatial accessibility to different graded medical centers beyond prefecture-level boundaries. We also discuss potential methods for designing reimbursement boundaries and reimbursement management strategies that the Chinese central government could adopt.Entities:
Keywords: Hubei Province; Medical reimbursement; rural residents; spatial accessibility
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31405176 PMCID: PMC6721258 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16162867
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of Hubei Province in China (a), and one example of transborder medical seeking behavior that leads to reimbursement inconvenience (b).
Figure 2The geographical distribution of residential points (a), and the geographical distribution of Grade-A and Grade-B hospitals in Hubei Province (b).
Descriptive characteristics of hospitals in China.
| Row | Hospital Grade | Service Radius | Scale of Hospital | Technical Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Grade-A hospital (Sanji hospital) | Mostly within prefecture-level administrative area | More than 501 hospital beds | High |
| (2) | Grade-B hospital (Erji hospital) | Mostly within county-level administrative area | 101–500 hospital beds | Medium |
| (3) | Grade-C hospital (Yiji hospital) | Mostly within township-level administrative area | Fewer than 100 hospital beds | Low |
Data source: Authors’ collection and one land-use/land-cover vector format map (LULC).
Figure 3A simplified version of the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method. AR = accessibility ratio.
Descriptive statistics of accessibility ratios of rural residents in Hubei Province.
| Row | Hospital Grade | Observations (1) | Average (2) | SD (3) | Minimum (4) | Maximum (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Grade-A hospital | 30,187 | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0 | 1.27 |
| (2) | Grade-B hospital | 30,187 | 0.30 | 0.44 | 0 | 2.74 |
| (3) | All | 30,187 | 0.52 | 0.72 | 0 | 3.96 |
Data source: Authors’ collection and LULC.
Figure 4Variation in accessibility ratios of rural residents in Hubei Province.
Descriptive statistics of mean accessibility ratios at the prefecture level and hospital level.
| Row | Prefecture-Level Administrative Area | Grade-A Hospital (2) | Grade-B Hospital (3) | Both (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Ezhou | 0.93 | 0.76 | 1.70 |
| (2) | Enshi | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| (3) | Huanggang | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.39 |
| (4) | Huangshi | 0.19 | 0.39 | 0.58 |
| (5) | Jingmen | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.13 |
| (6) | Jingzhou | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.28 |
| (7) | Qianjiang | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.21 |
| (8) | Shenlongjia | 0 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| (9) | Shiyan | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| (10) | Suizhou | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.23 |
| (11) | Tianmen | 0.06 | 0.28 | 0.34 |
| (12) | Wuhan | 1.12 | 0.78 | 1.90 |
| (13) | Xiantao | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.45 |
| (14) | Xianning | 0.07 | 0.20 | 0.27 |
| (15) | Xiangyang | 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
| (16) | Xiaogan | 0.47 | 0.38 | 0.86 |
| (17) | Yichang | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.10 |
Data source: Authors’ collection and LULC. Note: Hubei Province has 12 prefecture-level cities and one autonomous prefecture, including three sub-prefecture cities, and one forest region. Since there is a unique administrative division of Hubei Province and incomparability between prefecture-level administrative area and sub-prefecture administrative area, we set the number of prefecture-level administrative areas in Hubei Province as 13 when we computed the service radii of hospitals, but we still made detailed descriptive statistics in Table 3 and Table 4 for other administrative areas.
Figure 5Accessibility ratios to Grade-B hospitals (a), and the geographical distribution of reimbursement inconvenience regions with respect to Grade-B hospitals (b).
Figure 6Accessibility ratios to Grade-A hospitals (a), and the geographical distribution of reimbursement inconvenience regions with respect to Grade-A hospitals (b).
Reimbursement inconvenience proportions per prefecture.
| Row | Prefecture-Level Administrative Area | Grade-A Hospital | Grade-B Hospital | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage (Village) (1) | Percentage (Residential Point) (2) | Percentage (Village) (3) | Percentage (Residential Point) (4) | ||
| (1) | Ezhou | 12.46 | 12.14 | 73.94 | 72.61 |
| (2) | Enshi | 0 | 0 | 0.45 | 0.28 |
| (3) | Huanggang | 40.81 | 34.62 | 12.14 | 8.01 |
| (4) | Huangshi | 72.90 | 67.47 | 6.89 | 7.93 |
| (5) | Jingmen | 61.51 | 53.81 | 8.73 | 6.82 |
| (6) | Jingzhou | 34.08 | 31.22 | 4.87 | 2.72 |
| (7) | Qianjiang | 59.40 | 65.03 | 11.35 | 13.44 |
| (8) | Shenlongjia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (9) | Shiyan | 0 | 0 | 2.71 | 2.07 |
| (10) | Suizhou | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (11) | Tianmen | 58.41 | 59.85 | 21.28 | 20.69 |
| (12) | Wuhan | 4.65 | 4.55 | 4.78 | 5.01 |
| (13) | Xiantao | 84.93 | 88.36 | 6.66 | 5.33 |
| (14) | Xianning | 22.48 | 20.37 | 4.20 | 1.05 |
| (15) | Xiangyang | 1.27 | 2.05 | 1.27 | 2.22 |
| (16) | Xiaogan | 65.14 | 43.03 | 17.66 | 22.40 |
| (17) | Yichang | 0.72 | 0.50 | 2.17 | 0.44 |
| (18) | Total | 28.62 | 13.78 | 7.79 | 3.34 |
Data source: Authors’ collection and LULC.