| Literature DB >> 34368061 |
Cong Li1, Si-Fan Wang2, Xi-Hua Liu1, Li Wang3.
Abstract
Deepening the reform of insurance companies and improving commercial insurance protection capabilities become issues important to national strategy. They involve improving China's multi-tiered social security system to analyze the deep-seated reasons impacting the purchasing behavior of commercial health insurance for rural residents in China. Using the DEA-CCR model, this paper evaluates the development of China's insurance industry, inspects the impact of insurance industry development on purchasing behavior of rural commercial health insurance based on the data of tracking survey projects from China's household, and carries out empirical analysis. The research result shows that the development of the insurance industry has obviously promoted the purchase behavior of commercial health insurance for rural residents. This research has significant practical value on protection and promotion of production and life quality of rural residents, which will also provide beneficial reference on the formulation and implementation of future operation strategy in China's commercial health insurance companies.Entities:
Keywords: CFPS; China; DEA-CCR model; commercial insurance; insurance purchasing behavior
Year: 2021 PMID: 34368061 PMCID: PMC8339194 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.695121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Description and assignment of the variables.
| Dependent variable | Purchase commercial health insurance | Insurances | Not purchased = 0, purchased = 1 |
| Core independent variable | Operating efficiency of insurance companies | Efficiency | Efficiency value of insurance company |
| Control variable | Age | Age | The actual age of the rural population |
| Age squared | Age2 | The actual age squared of the rural population | |
| Gender | Gender | Female = 0, male = 1 | |
| Marriage | Marriage | Unmarried = 0, married = 1 | |
| Education level | Education | Whether it's high school/technical secondary school or above: No = 0, yes = 1 | |
| Disease | Diseases | Are there any chronic diseases within 6 months: No = 0, yes = 1 | |
| Health self-assessment | Health | From 1 to 5, the higher the better | |
| Neighborhood relations | Social | From 1 to 5, the higher the better | |
| Family size | Family | Number of rural households | |
Index selection and descriptive statistics.
| Invest-in index | Number of insurance practitioners | 1 | 26.1 | 124 | 6.4 | 1 | 45 | 21.4 | 6.4 |
| Investment in fixed assets | 2.1 | 159.4 | 47.4 | 37.9 | 4.5 | 150.8 | 50.5 | 37.1 | |
| Output index | Premium income | 93 | 1243 | 424 | 281 | 124 | 1502 | 588 | 355 |
| Payouts | 28 | 266 | 106 | 61 | 40 | 375 | 165 | 98 | |
Comprehensive scale technical efficiency value of insurance company.
| Eastern area | 1 | Beijing | 0.612 | 0.586 | 0.599 |
| 2 | Tianjin | 0.729 | 1.000 | 0.865 | |
| 3 | Hebei | 0.839 | 0.571 | 0.705 | |
| 4 | Shanghai | 0.815 | 0.770 | 0.793 | |
| 5 | Jiangsu | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| 6 | Zhejiang | 1.000 | 0.742 | 0.871 | |
| 7 | Fujian | 0.750 | 0.632 | 0.691 | |
| 8 | Shandong | 0.858 | 0.573 | 0.716 | |
| 9 | Guangdong | 1.000 | 0.816 | 0.908 | |
| Mean | 0.845 | 0.743 | 0.794 | ||
| Central area | 10 | Shanxi | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 11 | Anhui | 0.579 | 0.600 | 0.590 | |
| 12 | Jiangxi | 0.756 | 0.677 | 0.717 | |
| 13 | Henan | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| 14 | Hubei | 0.524 | 0.447 | 0.486 | |
| 15 | Hunan | 0.628 | 0.495 | 0.562 | |
| Mean | 0.748 | 0.703 | 0.726 | ||
| Western area | 16 | Guangxi | 0.471 | 0.406 | 0.439 |
| 17 | Chongqing | 1.000 | 0.974 | 0.987 | |
| 18 | Sichuan | 0.877 | 0.701 | 0.789 | |
| 19 | Guizhou | 0.694 | 0.332 | 0.513 | |
| 20 | Yunnan | 0.615 | 0.648 | 0.632 | |
| 21 | Shanxi | 0.687 | 0.556 | 0.622 | |
| 22 | Gansu | 0.636 | 0.579 | 0.608 | |
| Mean | 0.711 | 0.599 | 0.656 | ||
| North-eastern area | 23 | Liaoning | 0.737 | 0.528 | 0.633 |
| 24 | Jilin | 0.652 | 0.665 | 0.659 | |
| 25 | Heilongjiang | 0.691 | 0.618 | 0.655 | |
| Mean | 0.693 | 0.603 | 0.649 | ||
| Total mean | 0.766 | 0.677 | 0.721 |
Basic regression results.
| Efficiency of insurance companies | 0.0307 | 0.0342 | 0.2268 | 0.2691 |
| (0.0120) | (0.0127) | (0.0892) | (0.0988) | |
| Age | 0.0058 | 0.0368 | ||
| (0.0007) | (0.0559) | |||
| Age squared | −0.0000 | −0.0003 | ||
| (0.0000) | (0.0005) | |||
| Gender | −0.0122 | −0.0935 | ||
| (0.0040) | (0.3158) | |||
| Marriage | 0.0278 | 0.1893 | ||
| (0.0055) | (0.4111) | |||
| Education level | 0.0044 | 0.0287 | ||
| (0.0066) | (0.0501) | |||
| Disease | 0.0138 | 0.1271 | ||
| (0.0057) | (0.0489) | |||
| Health self-assessment | −0.0013 | −0.0107 | ||
| (0.0017) | (0.0139) | |||
| Neighborhood relations | −0.0076 | −0.0591 | ||
| (0.0023) | (0.0183) | |||
| Family size | 0.0031 | 0.0245 | ||
| (0.0010) | (0.0083) | |||
| Regional fixed effect | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| 17,874 | 17,874 | 17,874 | 17,874 | |
The coefficients in the table are marginal coefficients, standard errors are in parentheses;
indicates significance at the 1% level.
Robustness test regression results.
| Efficiency of insurance companies | 0.0466*** | 0.0289*** | 0.2210*** | 0.2380*** |
| (0.0177) | (0.0111) | (0.0844) | (0.0865) | |
| Age | 0.0050*** | 0.0328*** | ||
| (0.0009) | (0.0066) | |||
| Age squared | −0.0000*** | −0.0002*** | ||
| (0.0000) | (0.0006) | |||
| Gender | −0.0085* | −0.0706*** | ||
| (0.0042) | (0.0325) | |||
| Marriage | 0.0433*** | −0.2630*** | ||
| (0.0066) | (0.0464) | |||
| Education level | 0.0006 | 0.0080* | ||
| (0.0118) | (0.0660) | |||
| Disease | 0.0315*** | 0.2937*** | ||
| (0.0060) | (0.0624) | |||
| Health self-assessment | −0.0026 | −0.2142 | ||
| (0.0019) | (0.0145) | |||
| Neighborhood relations | −0.1050*** | −0.7848*** | ||
| (0.0026) | (0.0194) | |||
| Family size | 0.0023*** | 0.0156*** | ||
| (0.0010) | (0.0082) | |||
| Regional fixed effect | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| 17,874 | 17,874 | 17,874 | 17,874 | |
The coefficients in the table are marginal coefficients, standard errors are in parentheses; *** and * indicates significance at the 1 and 10% level.