3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Benefit equity of social health insurance in China and its provinces (2014–2020): implications for universal health coverage

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          China has increased fiscal input into social health insurance (SHI) schemes to achieve universal health coverage. Our study aimed to examine the equity of SHI benefits in the country and five representative provinces over the period of 2014–2020.

          Methods

          We analysed nationally and subnationally representative data from four waves (2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020) of the China Family Panel Studies. Benefit relative to consumption was assessed using concentration indices and concentration curves. We compared benefit distribution against health need across consumption quintiles. We further decomposed the change in the concentration index from 2014 to 2020.

          Results

          The national concentration index for SHI benefit was pro-rich but became substantially less so over time, falling from 0.262 in 2014 to 0.133 in 2020. Poorer quintiles suffered more ill health but received a smaller share of SHI benefits compared with the richer quintiles. All five provinces improved in benefit equity to varying degrees. Reduced disparity between employee and resident schemes, and use of hospitals as the usual source of care, accounted for 44.47% and 14.70%, respectively, of the national improvement in SHI benefit equity.

          Conclusion

          The benefit equity of SHI in China has improved, likely influenced by the narrowing funding gap between resident and employee scheme benefits. However, benefits remained skewed towards the richer groups with lower health need, revealing the resilience of an ‘Inverse Benefit Law’. We suggest risk-equalisation of SHI funds and coordinated reform in health financing and service delivery towards a greater focus on primary care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Re-revisiting Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use: a systematic review of studies from 1998–2011

            Objective: This systematic review aims to assess the use and implementation of the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use developed by Ronald M. Andersen in recent studies explicity using this model. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed in April 2011. The search strategy aimed to identify all articles in which the Andersen model had been applied and which had been published between 1998 and March 2011 in English or German. The search yielded a total of 328 articles. Two researchers independently reviewed the retrieved articles for possible inclusion using a three-step selection process (1. title/author, 2. abstract, 3. full text) with pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria for each step. 16 studies met all of the inclusion criteria and were used for analysis. A data extraction form was developed to collect information from articles on 17 categories including author, title, population description, aim of the study, methodological approach, use of the Andersen model, applied model version, and main results. The data collected were collated into six main categories and are presented accordingly. Results: Andersen’s Behavioral Model (BM) has been used extensively in studies investigating the use of health services. The studies identified for this review showed that the model has been used in several areas of the health care system and in relation to very different diseases. The 1995 version of the BM was the version most frequently applied in the studies. However, the studies showed substantial differences in the variables used. The majority of the reviewed studies included age (N=15), marital status (N=13), gender/sex (N=12), education (N=11), and ethnicity (N=10) as predisposing factors and income/financial situation (N=10), health insurance (N=9), and having a usual source of care/family doctor (N=9) as enabling factors. As need factors, most of the studies included evaluated health status (N=13) and self-reported/perceived health (N=9) as well as a very wide variety of diseases. Although associations were found between the main factors examined in the studies and the utilization of health care, there was a lack of consistency in these findings. The context of the studies reviewed and the characteristics of the study populations seemed to have a strong impact on the existence, strength and direction of these associations. Conclusions: Although the frequently used BM was explicitly employed as the theoretical background for the reviewed studies, their operationalizations of the model revealed that only a small common set of variables was used and that there were huge variations in the way these variables were categorized, especially as it concerns predisposing and enabling factors. This may stem from the secondary data sets used in the majority of the studies, which limited the variables available for study. Primary studies are urgently needed to enrich our understanding of health care utilization and the complexity of the processes shown in the BM.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early appraisal of China's huge and complex health-care reforms.

              China's 3 year, CN¥850 billion (US$125 billion) reform plan, launched in 2009, marked the first phase towards achieving comprehensive universal health coverage by 2020. The government's undertaking of systemic reform and its affirmation of its role in financing health care together with priorities for prevention, primary care, and redistribution of finance and human resources to poor regions are positive developments. Accomplishing nearly universal insurance coverage in such a short time is commendable. However, transformation of money and insurance coverage into cost-effective services is difficult when delivery of health care is hindered by waste, inefficiencies, poor quality of services, and scarcity and maldistribution of the qualified workforce. China must reform its incentive structures for providers, improve governance of public hospitals, and institute a stronger regulatory system, but these changes have been slowed by opposition from stakeholders and lack of implementation capacity. The pace of reform should be moderated to allow service providers to develop absorptive capacity. Independent, outcome-based monitoring and evaluation by a third-party are essential for mid-course correction of the plans and to make officials and providers accountable. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2024
                04 November 2024
                : 9
                : 11
                : e014806
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentSchool of Public Health , Peking University , Beijing, China
                [2 ]departmentChina Center for Health Development Studies , Peking University , Beijing, China
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                Author notes

                Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

                Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online ( https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014806).

                None declared.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-0008
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6364-0887
                Article
                bmjgh-2023-014806
                10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014806
                11535667
                39496360
                4f9ad909-9a13-4bed-9f77-8ba42658b0cc
                Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 December 2023
                : 20 October 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 71804004
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100012456, National Social Science Fund of China;
                Award ID: 21ZDA130
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506

                health insurance,health services research,health economics,health systems

                Comments

                Comment on this article