| Literature DB >> 31635413 |
Linhong Chen1,2, Yue Zhuo3,4, Zhiming Xu5, Xiaocang Xu6, Xin Gao7.
Abstract
As a result of China's economic growth, air pollution, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, has caused serious health problems and accompanying heavy economic burdens on healthcare. Therefore, the effect of carbon dioxide emission on healthcare expenditure (HCE) has attracted the interest of many researchers, most of which have adopted traditional empirical methods, such as ordinary least squares (OLS) or quantile regression (QR), to analyze the issue. This paper, however, attempts to introduce Bayesian quantile regression (BQR) to discuss the relationship between carbon dioxide emission and HCE, based on the longitudinal data of 30 provinces in China (2005-2016). It was found that carbon dioxide emission is, indeed, an important factor affecting healthcare expenditure in China, although its influence is not as great as the income variable. It was also revealed that the effect of carbon dioxide emission on HCE at a higher quantile was much smaller, which indicates that most people are not paying sufficient attention to the correlation between air pollution and healthcare. This study also proves the applicability of Bayesian quantile regression and its ability to offer more valuable information, as compared to traditional empirical tools, thus expanding and deepening research capabilities on the topic.Entities:
Keywords: Bayesian quantile regression (BQR); Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission; Government financial expenditure; Health care expenditure (HCE); Income; Traditional empirical methods
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635413 PMCID: PMC6843970 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
A summary of related studies.
| Reference | Object | Methodology | Dependent Variables | Independent Variables | Main Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chaabouni, S; Saidi, K | 51 countries | Generalized method of moments (GMM) | Health spending (HS) | CO2 emissions (C), GDP per capita (Y), stock capital (K), population ageing (POP), urbanization (URB) and trade openness (TO) | There is a bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and GDP per capita, between health spending and economic growth for the three groups of estimates. |
| Khoshnevis Yazdi, S., & Khanalizadeh, B | MENA countries | Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) method | Health expenditure | GDP, CO2 emissions and PM10 | Income and CO2 and PM10 emissions have statistically significant positive effects on health expenditure |
| Usman M, Ma Z, Wasif Zafar M, Haseeb A, Ashraf RU | 13 emerging economies | Lagrange Multiplier (LM) bootstrap approach | Government health expenditure, private health expenditure | CO2, SO2, NOx, GDP, foreign direct investment, population aging, education | CO2 emissions and the environment index have a positive and significant influence on government health expenditures |
| Yahaya, A., Nor, N. M., Habibullah, M. S., Ghani, J. A., & Noor, Z. M | 125 developing countries | Panel co-integration | Health expenditures | Income, NOx, CO2, SO2, CO | CO2 has the highest explanatory power on the per capita health expenditure. |
| Tian, F.; Gao, J.; Yang, K | 28 OECD countries | Quantile regression approach | Health expenditures | The number of physicians, the proportion of the population aged 65 years and older, GDP, the percent of urban population. | The determinants of per capita healthcare expenditure growth, involving the growth of lagged health spending, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), physician density. |
| Apergis, N.; Gupta, R.; Lau, C.K.M.; Mukherjee, Z. | Across U.S. states | Quantile regression | Healthcare expenditures | Personal disposable income per capita, and CO2 emissions | The effect of CO2 emissions was stronger at the upper-end of the conditional distribution of healthcare expenditures |
| Chaabouni, S.; Zghidi, N.; Mbarek, M.B | 51 countries | Dynamic simultaneous equations models | GDP, CO2 emissionshealth expenditures | Aging population, urbanization, labor employed in production, stock capital, trade openness | There is bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and economic growth, between health expenditures and economic growth for the global panel |
Variable selection and definition.
| Variable Types | Variable Name | Variable Definition | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | ln | Per capita health expenditure (yuan) in terms of natural logarithms | |
| Independent Variables | (a) Environment pollution variables | ln | Per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (ton/10,000 people) in terms of natural logarithms |
| (b) Economic variables | ln | Per capita income (yuan) in terms of natural logarithms | |
| ln | Per capita government financial expenditure (yuan) in terms of natural logarithms | ||
| ln | Density of commercial life insurance in terms of natural logarithms | ||
| (c) Public service variables | ln | Number of health technicians per thousand population in terms of natural logarithms | |
| (d) Family and personal variables | ln | Old dependency ratio in terms of natural logarithms | |
| ln | The scale of chronic disease (1000 people) in terms of natural logarithms | ||
Notes: HCE: Health care expenditure, CO2: Carbon dioxide, INCOME: Income, GFE: Government financial expenditure, DCLI: Density of commercial life insurance, ODR: Old dependency ratio, CD: Chronic disease, HT: health technician.
Figure 1Evolution of chronic diseases in China from 2003 to 2016.
Summary of statistics for all the variables.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Median | Trimmed | Skew | Kurtosis | Mean | SD | Median | Trimmed | Skew | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part A: In Original Value | Part B: In Log Difference | |||||||||||
| HCE | 688.32 | 385.15 | 613.23 | 644.47 | 1.09 | 1.34 | 6.38 | 0.57 | 6.42 | 6.39 | −0.13 | −0.61 |
| INCOME | 13,174.28 | 7797.48 | 11,526.37 | 12,091.22 | 1.48 | 2.89 | 9.33 | 0.56 | 9.35 | 9.32 | 0.06 | −0.63 |
| CD | 1082.22 | 650.26 | 936.29 | 1034.84 | 0.59 | −0.52 | 6.76 | 0.75 | 6.84 | 6.84 | −0.82 | 0.16 |
| CO2 | 4.19 | 3.04 | 3.28 | 3.68 | 2.26 | 8.36 | 1.22 | 0.64 | 1.19 | 1.21 | 0.2 | −0.29 |
| GFE | 0.66 | 0.48 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 1.36 | 2.09 | −0.68 | 0.76 | −0.58 | −0.67 | −0.18 | −0.79 |
| DCLI | 696.79 | 764.38 | 497.27 | 533.73 | 3.04 | 10.07 | 6.18 | 0.83 | 6.21 | 6.16 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| ODR | 12.52 | 2.41 | 12.36 | 12.37 | 0.54 | 0.02 | 2.51 | 0.19 | 2.51 | 2.51 | 0.09 | −0.47 |
| HT | 4.82 | 1.91 | 4.48 | 4.56 | 2.07 | 6.64 | 1.51 | 0.35 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.48 | 0.77 |
Figure 2Density function diagram of HCE(Health care expenditure).
Results of panel stability test—augmented Dickey-Fuller test (ADF).
| Variable | Dickey-Fuller | Variable | Dickey-Fuller | Variable | Dickey-Fuller |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCE | −8.638 *** | GFE | −9.062 *** | CD | −3.186 * |
| INCOME | −8.827 *** | ODR | −4.293 *** | HT | −6.409 *** |
| CO2 | −6.147 *** | DCLI | −7.161 *** | —— | —— |
| Pool-test | F: 0.2644 | Pool-test | F: 0.7186 | ||
Note: “*” and “***” represent p-value < 0.10 and p-value < 0.01, respectively.
Figure 3Traceplots of the MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) chains for intercept (the upper left), HCE (the upper right), CO2 (the lower left), and INCOME (the lower right) for BQR.
Coefficient estimates of BQR in different quantiles (τ = quantile).
| Variables/Quantiles | τ = 0.1 | τ = 0.3 | τ = 0.5 | τ = 0.7 | τ = 0.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INCOME | 0.356 ** | 0.344 ** | 0.331 ** | 0.271 ** | 0.313 ** |
| CD | 0.092 ** | 0.096 ** | 0.083 ** | 0.066 ** | 0.023 ** |
| CO2 | 0.101 ** | 0.104 ** | 0.157 ** | 0.215 ** | 0.227 ** |
| GFE | 0.302 ** | 0.278 ** | 0.274 ** | 0.316 ** | 0.312 ** |
| DCLI | –0.001 ** | 0.078 ** | 0.089 ** | 0.072 ** | 0.051 ** |
| ODR | 0.188 ** | 0.087 ** | 0.025 ** | 0.018 ** | –0.008 ** |
| HT | 0.262 ** | 0.249 ** | 0.227 ** | 0.221 ** | 0.183 ** |
Note: The results were 95% credible interval in BQR, which has the same meaning as p < 0.05 in OLS, thus, ** were shown. The number of retained draws and burn in draws were 4000 and 1000 each.
Estimation results of Bayesian quantile regression (BQR) and traditional empirical methods (tau = 0.5/mean).
| Variables | OLS | QR | BLR | BQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INCOME | 0.337 *** | 0.348 ** | 0.336 *** | 0.331 ** |
| CD | 0.076 ** | 0.017 ** | 0.076 *** | 0.083 ** |
| CO2 | 0.118 *** | 0.104 ** | 0.085 *** | 0.157 ** |
| GFE | 0.317 *** | 0.171 ** | 0.316 *** | 0.274 ** |
| DCLI | 0.080 * | 0.118 ** | 0.102 *** | 0.089 ** |
| ODR | 0.084 * | 0.233 ** | 0.045 *** | 0.025 ** |
| HT | 0.215 *** | 0.353 ** | 0.216 *** | 0.227 ** |
Note. “*”, “**”and “***” represent p-value < 0.10, p-value < 0.05 and p-value < 0.01, respectively. The results of both QR and BQR showed 95% credible interval (that is, “**”). In BQR, the number of retained draws and burn in draws were 4000 and 1000 each.
Figure 4Quantile plots for BQR. The dotted lines represent the OLS estimate. The shaded area shows the adjusted credible intervals as the parameters are estimated. The variables represented by each graph are intercept, INCOME, CD, CO2, GFE, DCLI, ODR, and HT, respectively.
Descriptive statistics of all variables (after log processing).
| Variables | Mean | SD | Skew | Kurtosis | Mean | SD | Skew | Kurtosis | Mean | SD | Skew | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | ||||||||||
| HCE | 5.87 | 0.44 | 0.83 | 0.32 | 6.38 | 0.35 | 0.23 | −0.76 | 7.1 | 0.29 | 0.07 | −0.16 |
| INCOME | 8.74 | 0.41 | 1.05 | 0.16 | 9.39 | 0.37 | 0.93 | −0.02 | 9.98 | 0.3 | 1.23 | 0.76 |
| CD | 6.72 | 0.78 | −0.77 | −0.2 | 6.76 | 0.76 | −0.79 | 0.02 | 6.8 | 0.74 | −0.79 | 0.12 |
| CO2 | 0.7 | 0.55 | 0.37 | −1.25 | 1.35 | 0.6 | 1.21 | 1.34 | 1.56 | 0.54 | 0.2 | −0.69 |
| GFE | −1.58 | 0.48 | 1.27 | 1.36 | −0.5 | 0.38 | 0.87 | −0.25 | 0.18 | 0.36 | 0.84 | −0.31 |
| DCLI | 5.45 | 0.8 | 1.35 | 2.12 | 6.39 | 0.66 | 1.12 | 1.97 | 6.93 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 1.03 |
| ODR | 2.5 | 0.18 | −0.21 | −1.02 | 2.44 | 0.17 | 0.2 | −0.78 | 2.61 | 0.18 | −0.3 | −0.69 |
| HT | 1.31 | 0.34 | 0.94 | 0.9 | 1.52 | 0.34 | 1.13 | 1.83 | 1.78 | 0.16 | 1.27 | 3.2 |
Quantile regression estimation of different quantiles in 2005, 2010, and 2015.
| Year | Bayes Estimated/Quantile | τ = 0.1 | τ = 0.3 | τ = 0.5 | τ = 0.7 | τ = 0.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
| 0.225 ** | 0.298 ** | 0.328 ** | 0.324 ** | 0.291 ** |
|
| 0.100 ** | 0.055 ** | 0.050 ** | 0.038 ** | −0.035 ** | |
|
| 0.055 ** | 0.024 ** | 0.005 ** | 0.019 ** | 0.004 ** | |
|
| 0.113 ** | 0.141 ** | 0.229 ** | 0.275 ** | 0.342 ** | |
|
| 0.171 ** | 0.232 ** | 0.184 ** | 0.222 ** | 0.258 ** | |
|
| −0.005 ** | −0.010 ** | −0.003 ** | 0.005 ** | 0.019 ** | |
|
| 0.171 ** | 0.252 ** | 0.244 ** | 0.212 ** | 0.207 ** | |
| 2010 |
| 0.175 ** | 0.216 ** | 0.234 ** | 0.232 ** | 0.260 ** |
|
| 0.146 ** | 0.107 ** | 0.070 ** | 0.058 ** | 0.003 ** | |
|
| 0.124 ** | 0.148 ** | 0.155 ** | 0.123 ** | 0.135 ** | |
|
| 0.069 ** | 0.098 ** | 0.088 ** | 0.139 ** | 0.232 ** | |
|
| 0.197 ** | 0.163 ** | 0.172 ** | 0.127 ** | 0.209 ** | |
|
| 0.014 ** | 0.021 ** | 0.016 ** | 0.009 ** | −0.001 ** | |
|
| 0.215 ** | 0.352 ** | 0.398 ** | 0.441 ** | 0.285 ** | |
| 2015 |
| 0.048 ** | 0.001 ** | −0.002 ** | 0.027 ** | 0.096 ** |
|
| 0.061 ** | 0.087 ** | 0.140 ** | 0.147 ** | 0.131 ** | |
|
| 0.130 ** | 0.116 ** | 0.106 ** | 0.076 ** | 0.065 ** | |
|
| 0.101 ** | 0.156 ** | 0.121 ** | 0.170 ** | 0.260 ** | |
|
| 0.453 ** | 0.545 ** | 0.584 ** | 0.541 ** | 0.464 ** | |
|
| 0.110 ** | 0.112 ** | 0.099 ** | 0.090 ** | 0.044 ** | |
|
| 0.099 ** | 0.136 ** | 0.144 ** | 0.125 ** | 0.095 ** |
Note: All of the outcomes are at 95% credible interval. Number of burn-in draws: 1000, number of retained draws: 4000.
Figure 5Estimated results of BQR at different quantiles in 2005, 2010, and 2015.