ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024
Evidence From the China Family Panel Studies Survey on the Effect of Integrating the Basic Medical Insurance System for Urban and Rural Residents on the Health Equity of Residents: Difference-in-Differences Analysis.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of health expenditure in mainland China during 2012-2020.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Health Insurance Schemes and Chronic Disease Management Behaviours in China: Evidence from Women with Non-Communicable Diseases.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Adolescent sports participation and social-class health inequalities: evidence from CHNS.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- How Does the Basic Urban-Rural Medical Insurance Affect Resident Health Inequality? Evidence from China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patterns of CPBMI-OC and associated factors among platform workers in new forms of employment in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Climate risks, multi-tier medical insurance systems, and health inequality: evidence from China's middle-aged and elderly populations.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Medical insurance integration improves migrant workers' employment quality: Evidence from China's URRMI reform.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Spatio-temporal evolution of financial sustainability in Chinese public hospitals: evidence from provincial panel data (2010-2022).Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Epidemiological trends and age-period-cohort effects on subarachnoid hemorrhage burden across the BRICS-plus from 1992 to 2021.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A study of the impact of DIP payment reform on coronary heart disease hospitalization costs and equity.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The impact of the urban-rural residents' medical insurance integration on rural residents' out-of-pocket medical costs: based on the deductible, reimbursement rate, and ceiling line.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe fragmentation of the medical insurance system is a major challenge to achieving health equity. In response to this problem, the Chinese government is pushing to establish the unified Urban and Rural Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URRBMI) system by integrating the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme and the Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance. By the end of 2020, URRBMI had been implemented almost entirely across China. Has URRBMI integration promoted health equity for urban and rural residents?
objectiveThis study aims to examine the effect of URRBMI integration on the health level of residents and whether the integration can contribute to reducing health disparities and promoting health equity.
methodsWe used the staggered difference-in-differences method based on the China Family Panel Studies survey from 2014 to 2018. Our study had a nationally representative sample of 27,408 individuals from 98 cities. We chose self-rated health as the measurement of health status. In order to more accurately discern whether the sample was covered by URRBMI, we obtained the exact integration time of URRBMI according to the official documents issued by local governments. Finally, we grouped the sample by urban and rural areas, regions, and household income to examine the impact of the integration on health equity.
resultsWe found that overall, the URRBMI integration has improved the health level of Chinese residents (B=0.066, 95% CI 0.014-0.123; P=.01). In terms of health equity, the results showed that first, the integration has improved the health level of rural residents (B=0.070, 95% CI 0.012-0.128; P=.02), residents in western China (B=0.159, 95% CI 0.064-0.255; P<.001), and lower-middle-income groups (B=0.113, 95% CI 0.004-0.222, P=.04), so the integration has played a certain role in narrowing the health gap between urban and rural areas, different regions, and different income levels. Through further mechanism analysis, we found that the URRBMI integration reduced health inequity in China by facilitating access to higher-rated hospitals and increasing reimbursement rates for medical expenses. However, the integration did not improve the health of the central region and low-income groups, and the lack of access to health care for low-income groups was not effectively reduced.
conclusionsThe role of URRBMI integration in promoting health equity among urban and rural residents was significant (P=.02), but in different regions and income groups, it was limited. Focusing on the rational allocation of medical resources between regions and increasing the policy tilt toward low-income groups could help improve the equity of health insurance integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.