| Literature DB >> 34017814 |
Pu Bai1, Yixuan Tang2, Weike Zhang2, Ming Zeng2.
Abstract
A growing body of research has documented the determinants of healthcare expenditure, but no known empirical research has focused on investigating the spatial effects between economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and healthcare expenditure. This study aims to explore the spatial effects of EPU on healthcare expenditure using the panel data of 29 regions in China from 2007 to 2017. Our findings show that healthcare expenditure in China has the characteristics of spatial clustering and spatial spillover effects. Our study also shows that EPU has positive spatial spillover effects on healthcare expenditure in China; that is, EPU affects not only local healthcare expenditure but also that in other geographically close or economically connected regions. Our study further indicates that the spatial spillover effects of EPU on healthcare expenditure only exist in the eastern area. The findings of this research provide some key implications for policymakers in emerging markets.Entities:
Keywords: economic policy uncertainty; healthcare expenditures; regional heterogeneity; spatial Durbin model; spatial spillover effects
Year: 2021 PMID: 34017814 PMCID: PMC8129179 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.673778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1The trend of per capita expenditure on health in China (2000–2019). Data source: National Bureau of Statistics of China (https://data.stats.gov.cn).
Figure 2Distribution of the provincial EPU index in China (2007 and 2017).
Description of the variables.
| Dependent variables | Inpatient expenditure | The logarithm of the per capita expenditure in hospitalization | |
| Outpatient expenditure | The logarithm of the per capita expenditure in outpatient | ||
| Independent variables | EPU | China's provincial EPU index was proposed by Yu et al. ( | |
| The standardization of China's provincial EPU index was proposed by Yu et al. ( | |||
| Control variables | GDP | The logarithm of GDP | |
| Aging rate | The ratio of people over 65 to the total population | ||
| Urbanization level | The ratio of the urban population to the total population | ||
| Industrial structure | The proportion of the third industry in the economic structure | ||
| Mortality rate | The ratio of the deaths to the total population | ||
| Number of medical institutions | The logarithm of the total number of medical institutions | ||
| Fiscal revenue | The logarithm of the total number of government fiscal revenue | ||
| Number of beds in medical institutions | The logarithm of the total number of beds in medical institutions per 10,000 people |
Descriptive statistics of all variables.
| 319 | 72.750 | 31.410 | 29.290 | 217.400 | |
| 319 | 1.676 | 0.745 | 0.010 | 4.602 | |
| 319 | 4.444 | 0.478 | 1.411 | 6.051 | |
| 319 | 21.220 | 14.760 | 1.010 | 86.250 | |
| 319 | 9.537 | 0.876 | 6.681 | 11.400 | |
| 319 | 9.688 | 1.905 | 5.473 | 14.410 | |
| 319 | 54.190 | 13.670 | 28.240 | 89.600 | |
| 319 | 42.970 | 9.279 | 28.300 | 80.560 | |
| 319 | 5.737 | 1.103 | 2.280 | 7.400 | |
| 319 | 2.759 | 0.720 | 0.470 | 4.069 | |
| 319 | 6.935 | 0.966 | 3.768 | 9.091 | |
| 319 | 9.932 | 0.896 | 7.333 | 11.310 |
Model selection test.
| LM (lag) test | 9.680 | 0.002 |
| Robust LM (lag) test | 5.683 | 0.017 |
| LM (error) test | 10.044 | 0.002 |
| Robust LM (error) test | 6.046 | 0.014 |
| Wald test spatial lag | 85.136 | 0.000 |
| LR test spatial lag | 37.666 | 0.000 |
| Wald test spatial error | 85.175 | 0.000 |
| LR test spatial error | 37.702 | 0.000 |
Global moran index values of healthcare expenditure and EPU.
| 2007 | 0.266*** | 0.224*** | 0.073 | 0.207** | 0.360*** | 0.284*** | 0.113** | 0.138** |
| 2008 | 0.280*** | 0.235*** | −0.033 | 0.115* | 0.373*** | 0.29*** | −0.123* | −0.028 |
| 2009 | 0.274*** | 0.234*** | 0.021 | −0.003 | 0.369*** | 0.287*** | 0.053* | 0.035 |
| 2010 | 0.271*** | 0.228*** | −0.065 | −0.163 | 0.379*** | 0.316*** | −0.062 | −0.009 |
| 2011 | 0.259*** | 0.202*** | −0.018 | 0.035 | 0.370*** | 0.283*** | 0.040* | 0.115** |
| 2012 | 0.251*** | 0.188** | 0.001 | 0.123* | 0.360*** | 0.252*** | 0.05 | 0.127** |
| 2013 | 0.252*** | 0.175** | 0.115* | 0.178** | 0.359*** | 0.239*** | 0.108** | 0.105* |
| 2014 | 0.258*** | 0.149*** | −0.101 | −0.031 | 0.362*** | 0.215*** | −0.033 | 0.000 |
| 2015 | 0.263*** | 0.151** | −0.076 | 0.008 | 0.363*** | 0.227*** | −0.045 | 0.037 |
| 2016 | 0.260*** | 0.143** | 0.221*** | −0.079 | 0.363*** | 0.228*** | −0.059 | −0.051 |
| 2017 | 0.266*** | 0.207** | −0.089 | −0.062 | 0.360*** | 0.210*** | −0.083 | −0.114 |
***p < 1%, **p < 5%, and *p < 10%.
Figure 3Scatter plot of the local Moran index values for healthcare expenditure and EPU (2017). Horizontal axis represents the observations of the local region, and the vertical axis represents the observations of the adjacent regions; The slope of the regression line in the scatter plot is equal to the global Moran index value.
Estimation results of the impact of EPU on healthcare expenditure.
| 0.9747*** | 1.1836*** | 1.1370*** | |
| (3.16) | (3.83) | (3.11) | |
| 10.9685 | 16.4508** | 7.4569* | |
| (1.21) | (2.08) | (1.73) | |
| −0.0720 | −0.3310 | 0.5088 | |
| (−0.20) | (−0.96) | (1.54) | |
| −1.6444*** | −1.5419*** | −0.8205*** | |
| (−3.58) | (−2.98) | (−2.62) | |
| 0.3598 | 0.3707 | 0.4048** | |
| (1.51) | (1.61) | (2.16) | |
| 1.5551 | 0.3055 | −0.3009 | |
| (1.52) | (0.29) | (−0.34) | |
| −24.8311*** | −29.6151*** | −29.4146*** | |
| (−2.64) | (−2.96) | (−3.95) | |
| 8.6466 | 8.6837 | 14.0025*** | |
| (1.60) | (1.55) | (2.97) | |
| 1.0982 | 0.0268 | 0.9478 | |
| (0.54) | (0.01) | (0.42) | |
| −2.8e + 02*** | −3.0e + 02*** | −3.6e + 02*** | |
| (−5.61) | (−5.12) | (−5.86) | |
| W | −0.6815 | 5.4321*** | 1.8449* |
| (−1.04) | (3.18) | (1.85) | |
| W | 30.8799** | 11.5531 | 45.0768*** |
| (2.32) | (0.93) | (4.02) | |
| W | 0.4442 | 2.5889** | 1.2100 |
| (0.71) | (2.03) | (1.05) | |
| W | 1.2365** | 2.2339 | −1.4553** |
| (1.97) | (1.47) | (−2.46) | |
| W | 1.0346*** | 1.7396*** | 1.7709*** |
| (4.09) | (3.52) | (4.77) | |
| W | −1.5752 | −0.0983 | 0.6859 |
| (−1.63) | (−0.10) | (0.82) | |
| W | −21.8530* | −70.4759** | −51.3869*** |
| (−1.80) | (−2.22) | (−2.68) | |
| W* | −6.9207 | 15.1669 | 0.0631 |
| (−0.87) | (1.61) | (0.01) | |
| W* | −0.2737 | 1.4840 | 0.7197 |
| (−0.13) | (0.70) | (0.34) | |
| ρ | 0.3945*** | 0.3011* | 0.5840*** |
| (3.96) | (1.95) | (11.71) | |
| θ | −3.1937*** | −3.3012*** | −2.7335*** |
| (−8.31) | (−7.94) | (−4.82) | |
| 11.5810*** | 11.7754*** | 10.0067*** | |
| (8.73) | (8.25) | (9.32) | |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Region FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 319 | 319 | 319 |
This table presents the regression results about the impact of EPU on healthcare expenditure using SDM method with time and entity fixed effects; ***p < 1%, **p < 5%, and *p < 10%, respectively; t–statistics value in brackets.
Decomposition effects of EPU on healthcare expenditure.
| 1.5158*** | 5.8162** | 7.3321** | |
| (3.46) | (2.21) | (2.53) | |
| 14.4185*** | 113.0735*** | 127.4920*** | |
| (3.33) | (3.95) | (4.20) | |
| 0.7419** | 3.1982 | 3.9401 | |
| (2.32) | (1.23) | (1.46) | |
| −1.1047*** | −4.4539*** | −5.5586*** | |
| (−3.16) | (−2.99) | (−3.28) | |
| 0.6853*** | 4.5839*** | 5.2692*** | |
| (3.63) | (4.57) | (4.88) | |
| −0.1546 | 1.1334 | 0.9788** | |
| (−0.18) | (1.45) | (2.14) | |
| −39.0581*** | −1.5e + 02*** | −1.9e + 02*** | |
| (−3.81) | (−2.64) | (−2.87) | |
| 15.0720*** | 17.7925 | 32.8645* | |
| (3.28) | (1.15) | (1.84) | |
| 1.3537 | 2.7435 | 4.0973*** | |
| (0.64) | (1.32) | (2.76) | |
***p < 1%, **p < 5%, and *p < 10%, respectively; t-statistics value in brackets.
Estimation results of regional heterogeneity.
| 0.0344*** | 0.0451* | −0.0571 | |
| (3.35) | (1.71) | (−1.22) | |
| 0.0238*** | 0.0236 | 0.0762 | |
| (2.62) | (1.56) | (1.03) | |
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| ρ | 0.1196*** | 0.1202*** | −0.2151** |
| (3.60) | (2.87) | (−2.46) | |
| θ | −4.4107*** | −1.6911*** | −3.1585*** |
| (−12.16) | (−4.09) | (−9.10) | |
| 9.0678*** | 5.3169*** | 5.1230*** | |
| (9.28) | (3.42) | (3.84) | |
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Region FE | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 110 | 99 | 110 |
This table presents the regression results of the SDM method based on spatial economic weight matrix; The results of control variables are consistent with those in .
Estimation results of robustness tests.
| 0.0387** | 0.0347* | 0.0305* | |||||
| (2.18) | (1.87) | (1.80) | |||||
| 0.0351** | 0.0424*** | 0.0458*** | |||||
| (2.52) | (2.72) | (2.86) | |||||
| W* | 0.0301* | 0.0658* | 0.0346** | 4.4436*** | |||
| (1.90) | (1.87) | (1.73) | (166.18) | ||||
| W* | −0.0091 | 0.1774*** | 0.0540** | ||||
| (−0.39) | (2.78) | (2.39) | |||||
| 0.5169 | 1.2740 | 3.5758*** | −2.8e+02*** | −2.8e+02*** | −3.4e+02*** | ||
| (0.38) | (0.67) | (3.58) | (−5.62) | (−4.65) | (−5.83) | ||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| ρ | 0.9444*** | 0.9444*** | 0.9563*** | 0.3904*** | 0.3234** | 0.5878*** | |
| (84.78) | (87.32) | (123.51) | (3.87) | (2.15) | (11.94) | ||
| θ | −1.3320*** | −1.3464*** | −1.7160*** | −3.1956*** | −3.3007*** | −2.7442*** | |
| (−3.49) | (−3.76) | (−5.92) | (−8.38) | (−7.94) | (−4.77) | ||
| 0.0187** | 0.0189* | 0.0167* | 11.6378*** | 11.8403*** | 10.0025*** | ||
| (2.02) | (1.85) | (1.82) | (8.96) | (8.36) | (9.62) | ||
| Year FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Region FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 | |
This table presents the robustness test results; Columns (1–3) are the results of the alternative measure of healthcare expenditure (Out_exp) based on the three spatial weight matrices, respectively; Columns (4–6) are the results of the alternative measure of EPU (EPU2) based on the three spatial weight matrices; Column (7) is the result of the endogenous test using the GMM method; The results of control variables are consistent with those in .