| Literature DB >> 32552901 |
Guorui Fan1, Zhaohua Deng1, Xiang Wu1, Yang Wang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: China has achieved nearly universal coverage of the Social Basic Medical Insurance (SBMI), which aims to reduce the disease burden and improve the utilization of health services. We investigated the association between China's health insurance schemes and health service utilization of middle-aged and older adults at different quantiles, and then explored whether the SBMI could help reduce the underutilization of health services among the middle-aged and older adults in China.Entities:
Keywords: Health equity; Quantile regression; Social basic medical insurance; Utilization of health services
Year: 2020 PMID: 32552901 PMCID: PMC7302153 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05423-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Estimation results of health service utilization
| Variables | LMM | Quantile | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.8 | 0.85 | 0.9 | 0.95 | ||
| URBMI | 0.660*** | 1.608*** | 1.578*** | 1.473*** | 1.403*** | 1.152*** |
| (0.100) | (0.388) | (0.287) | (0.238) | (0.224) | (0.158) | |
| UEBMI | 0.180 | 0.095 | 0.629 | 1.196*** | 1.070*** | 0.736*** |
| (0.140) | (0.258) | (0.397) | (0.382) | (0.239) | (0.220) | |
| Age | 0.009*** | 0.022*** | 0.034*** | 0.047*** | 0.055*** | 0.061*** |
| (0.003) | (0.007) | (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.008) | (0.011) | |
| Gender | −0.058 | −0.069 | − 0.106 | − 0.039 | 0.105 | 0.071 |
| (0.062) | (0.084) | (0.131) | (0.145) | (0.119) | (0.101) | |
| Education | 0.140* | 0.278** | 0.309* | 0.297 | 0.237 | 0.388** |
| (0.074) | (0.105) | (0.158) | (0.239) | (0.154) | (0.185) | |
| Marital | 0.041 | 0.085 | 0.218* | 0.213 | 0.227 | 0.239** |
| (0.075) | (0.093) | (0.118) | (0.130) | (0.168) | (0.110) | |
| Log(Income) | −0.008 | −0.003 | − 0.017 | − 0.020 | − 0.051*** | − 0.047**** |
| (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.016) | (0.018) | (0.018) | (0.013) | |
| SRH | ||||||
| −1.400*** | −3.284*** | −2.051*** | −1.580*** | −1.325*** | −0.854*** | |
| (0.076) | (0.337) | (0.297) | (0.159) | (0.111) | (0.092) | |
| −2.000*** | −3.605*** | −4.567*** | − 3.841*** | − 2.755*** | − 1.565*** | |
| (0.110) | (0.247) | (0.254) | (0.684) | (0.399) | (0.268) | |
| −2.100*** | −3.566*** | −4.624*** | −5.380*** | − 3.310*** | −1.812*** | |
| (0.110) | (0.261) | (0.225) | (0.370) | (0.426) | (0.289) | |
| −2.100 | −3.493*** | −4.477*** | −5.393*** | −3.554*** | − 2.712*** | |
| (0.270) | (0.215) | (0.340) | (1.199) | (1.109) | (0.794) | |
| Demand | 1.400*** | 2.842*** | 1.978*** | 1.544*** | 1.025*** | 0.807*** |
| (0.120) | (0.342) | (0.193) | (0.284) | (0.216) | (0.188) | |
| ADLs | 0.170*** | 0.448*** | 0.331*** | 0.267*** | 0.257*** | 0.176*** |
| (0.036) | (0.121) | (0.101) | (0.090) | (0.060) | (0.059) | |
| IADLs | 0.021 | 0.124 | 0.175* | 0.185** | 0.047 | 0.082 |
| (0.038) | (0.090) | (0.088) | (0.079) | (0.058) | (0.049) | |
| Hospitals | 0.080 | 0.097 | 0.202 | 0.382** | 0.378*** | 0.327** |
| (0.062) | (0.083) | (0.121) | (0.153) | (0.121) | (0.136) | |
| Health centers | −0.002 | 0.129 | 0.140 | 0.140 | 0.167 | 0.197 |
| (0.082) | (0.156) | (0.234) | (0.258) | (0.162) | (0.183) | |
| Clinics | −0.064 | 0.132 | 0.104 | 0.331* | 0.344 | 0.227 |
| (0.092) | (0.139) | (0.196) | (0.197) | (0.206) | (0.202) | |
| Constant | 2.100*** | 2.663*** | 2.998*** | 2.893*** | 4.000*** | 3.872*** |
| (0.260) | (0.413) | (0.583) | (0.665) | (0.563) | (0.603) | |
| Observations | 13,087 | 13,087 | 13,087 | 13,087 | 13,087 | 13,087 |
| AIC | 67,592 | 73,835 | 75,668 | 77,410 | 79,072 | 80,905 |
| Log-likelihood | −33,764 | −36,885 | −37,802 | −38,673 | −39,504 | −40,420 |
Notes
(a) Standardize coefficients are reported; standard errors in parentheses
(b) Significance level: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
(c) We further controlled provinces and chronic conditions. Because the categories of variables were too many, the results are not reported in detail
Fig. 1Medical expenditure distribution density
Descriptive statistics
| Total | NCMS | URBMI | UEBMI | Statistica | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 127 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Male | 6247(47.7) | 5060(46.5) | 958(60.0) | 229(37.9) | ||
| Female | 6840(52.3) | 5826(53.5) | 638(40.0) | 376(62.1) | ||
| Age | 75 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 60.8 ± 9.3 | 60.5 ± 9.3 | 62.7 ± 9.5 | 61.4 ± 9.5 | ||
| Education | 501 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Illiteracy | 3342(25.5) | 3191(29.3) | 73(4.6) | 78(12.9) | ||
| Literacy | 9745(74.5) | 7695(70.7) | 1523(95.4) | 527(87.1) | ||
| Marital | 17 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Married | 10,791(82.5) | 8923(82.0) | 1374(86.1) | 494(81.7) | ||
| Others | 2296(17.5) | 1963(18.0) | 222(13.9) | 111(18.3) | ||
| Log(Income) | 1515 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 4.5 ± 4.4 | 4 ± 4.1 | 7.8 ± 4.5 | 5.2 ± 4.7 | ||
| Self-reported health | 118 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Poor | 2927(22.4) | 2611(24.0) | 199(12.5) | 117(19.3) | ||
| Fair | 7191(54.9) | 5927(54.4) | 919(57.6) | 345(57.0) | ||
| Good | 1476(11.3) | 1145(10.5) | 256(16.0) | 75(12.4) | ||
| Very good | 1341(10.2) | 1076(9.9) | 203(12.7) | 62(10.3) | ||
| Excellent | 152(1.2) | 127(1.2) | 19(1.2) | 6(1.0) | ||
| ADLs | 46 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 0.4 ± 1 | 0.4 ± 1 | 0.2 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 1 | ||
| IADLs | 179 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 1 | 0.2 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 0.8 | ||
| Demand | 17 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Yes | 811(6.2) | 706(6.5) | 62(3.9) | 43(7.1) | ||
| No | 12,276(93.8) | 10,180(93.5) | 1534(96.1) | 562(92.9) | ||
| Hospitals | 344 | < 0.001 | ||||
| One or more | 8181(62.5) | 6421(59.0) | 1274(79.8) | 486(80.3) | ||
| No | 4906(37.5) | 4465(41.0) | 322(20.2) | 119(19.7) | ||
| Health centers | 1515 | < 0.001 | ||||
| One or more | 2396(18.3) | 1350(12.4) | 777(48.7) | 269(44.5) | ||
| No | 10,691(81.7) | 9536(87.6) | 819(51.3) | 336(55.5) | ||
| Clinics | 3291 | < 0.001 | ||||
| One or more | 10,669(81.5) | 9821(90.2) | 561(35.2) | 287(47.4) | ||
| No | 2418(18.5) | 1065(9.8) | 1035(64.8) | 318(52.6) | ||
| Provinces | ||||||
| Chronic | ||||||
| Log (Medical Expenditure) | 18 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 2 ± 3.4 | 2 ± 3.3 | 2.4 ± 3.8 | 2.2 ± 3.6 | ||
Legends: a: Kruskal-Wallis is used to assess differences between group
b: See Table 1S in Additional file 1
Fig. 2Linear quantile mixed regression results. The long-dashed line in the figure is the estimated value of the coefficient of each variable linear mixed model. The short-dashed line indicates the confidence interval of the linear mixed model estimation. The solid line represents the estimated value of the linear quantile mixed regression coefficient of each variable, and the shaded part refers to the confidence interval of the linear quantile mixed regression (linear mixed model and confidence interval of linear quantile mixed regression is 0.95)
The proportion of different health service utilization in SBMI
| Without any health service utilization | 7869(72.3) |
| With only outpatient health service utilization | 1655(15.2) |
| With inpatient health service utilization | 1362(12.5) |
| Without any health service utilization | 1098(68.8) |
| With only outpatient health service utilization | 235(14.7) |
| With inpatient health service utilization | 263(16.5) |
| Without any health service utilization | 432(71.4) |
| With only outpatient health service utilization | 76(12.6) |
| With inpatient health service utilization | 97(16.0) |
Estimation results of samples with only outpatient health service utilization
| Variables | LMM | Quantile | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.9 | ||
| URBMI | 0.370*** | 0.475** | 0.295* | 0.431*** | 0.365* | 0.545** |
| (0.120) | (0.191) | (0.170) | (0.126) | (0.187) | (0.259) | |
| UEBMI | 0.300 | 0.352 | 0.343 | 0.319 | 0.609*** | 0.692*** |
| (0.180) | (0.265) | (0.255) | (0.213) | (0.151) | (0.237) | |
| Constant | 6.100*** | 6.264*** | 6.190*** | 6.110*** | 6.270*** | 6.574*** |
| (0.320) | (0.284) | (0.346) | (0.315) | (0.414) | (0.356) | |
| Observations | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 |
| AIC | 7241 | 7931 | 7489 | 7356 | 7579 | 8236 |
| Log Likelihood | − 3588 | − 3933 | − 3713 | − 3596 | − 3758 | − 4086 |
Notes: (a) Standardize coefficients are reported; standard errors in parentheses
(b) Significance level: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
(c) We further controlled demographic and other control variables. And the results are not reported in detail
Estimation results of samples with inpatient health service utilization
| Variables | LMM | Quantile | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.9 | ||
| URBMI | 0.620*** | 0.631** | 0.665*** | 0.492*** | 0.601*** | 0.578*** |
| (0.110) | (0.149) | (0.102) | (0.088) | (0.109) | (0.117) | |
| UEBMI | 0.270* | 0.559*** | 0.420** | 0.352** | 0.306** | 0.063 |
| (0.140) | (0.132) | (0.165) | (0.164) | (0.148) | (0.209) | |
| Constant | 8.800*** | 8.327*** | 8.352*** | 8.839*** | 9.158*** | 9.308*** |
| (0.270) | (0.438) | (0.387) | (0.294) | (0.370) | (0.466) | |
| Observations | 1722 | 1722 | 1722 | 1722 | 1722 | 1722 |
| AIC | 5680 | 6348 | 5811 | 5623 | 5898 | 6382 |
| Log Likelihood | − 2808 | − 3142 | − 2874 | − 2780 | − 2917 | − 3159 |
Notes: (a) Standardize coefficients are reported; standard errors in parentheses
(b) Significance level: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
(c) We further controlled demographic and other control variables. And the results are not reported in detail