Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262341›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Who benefited from the New Rural Cooperative Medical System in China? A case study on Anhui Province.

Lidan Wang, Anjue Wang, Gerry FitzGerald, Lei Si, Qicheng Jiang, Dongqing Ye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. An Examination of the Determination of Medical Capacity under a National Health Insurance Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lidan WangSchool of Health Management, Anhui Medical University, No.81, Mei Shan Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230032, China.
Anjue WangDepartment of Development and Planning, Anhui Medical University, No.81, Mei Shan Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230032, China.
Gerry FitzGeraldSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, 4059, Australia.
Lei SiSchool of Health Management, Anhui Medical University, No.81, Mei Shan Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230032, China.
Qicheng JiangSchool of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, No.81, Mei Shan Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230032, China. jiangqicheng@ahmu.edu.cn.
Dongqing YeSchool of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, No.81, Mei Shan Road, Hefei, Anhui, 230032, China. ydqahmu@gmail.com.
Anhui Medical University · CNQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of the New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NCMS) is to decrease the financial burden and improve the health of rural areas. The purpose of the present study is to determine how government subsidies vary between poorer and wealthier groups, especially in low-income regions in rural China.

methodsThe distribution, amount, and equity of government subsidies delivered via NCMS to rural residents at different economic levels were assessed using benefit-incidence analysis, concentration index, Kakwani index, Gini index, Lorenz curve, and concentration curve. Household and health institution surveys were conducted in 2010, covering 9701 residents. Household socio-economic status, healthcare costs, out-of-pocket payments, and utilization information were collected in household interviews, and reimbursement policy was provided by institutional survey.

resultsThe government subsidy concentration index was -0.055 for outpatients and 0.505 for inpatients; and the outpatient and inpatient subsidy Kakwani indexes were -0.376 and 0.184, respectively. The poorest 20 % of populations received 3.4 % of the total subsidy output; while the wealthiest 20 % received 54.3 %. The results showed that the distribution of outpatient subsidies was equitable, but the hospital subsidies disproportionally benefited wealthier people.

conclusionsWealthier people benefited more than poorer people from the NCMS in terms of inpatient and total subsidies. For outpatients, the subsidies were unrelated to ability to pay. This contradicts the common belief that the NCMS does not exacerbate benefit inequity. Long-term policy is required to tackle this problem, specifically of redesign the NCMS reimbursement system.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory CareChildChild, PreschoolChinaCost of IllnessFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHealth Care CostsHealth EquityHealth ExpendituresHospitalizationHumansInfantBenefit incidence analysisConcentration indexKakwani indexNCMSSubsidy

Identifiers

PMID27262341
PMCPMC4893416
OpenAlexW2418000102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.