ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
The impact of prudent financial policies on the urban-rural household health expenditure disparity: evidence from China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With the rapid development of China's financial markets, the impact of proactive financial policies on household health investment has drawn significant attention, yet little is known about the effects of prudent financial policies on household health expenditures. We examine the effects of a prudent financial policy called the New Asset Management Regulation (NAMR). The policy aims to reduce systemic financial risks by breaking rigid payments and regulating shadow banking. The introduction of the policy expands research in this field. Methods: This study employs the intensity difference-in-differences (intensity DID) approach, utilizing data from the China Family Panel Studies (2012-2020), to assess the effects of the NAMR. We further construct interaction terms between household existing capital (both tangible and intangible) and the key explanatory variables to test the heterogeneity of the baseline results. Results: The results show that the regulation significantly affects rural households' medical expenditures (with a 20.5% decrease in guaranteed investment and a 1.3% increase in out-of-pocket payments), but has no significant impact on urban households. Heterogeneity analysis shows urban households' health investment reduces health spending by 0.067%, moderated negatively by tangible assets (property) and positively by intangible assets (business experience, social ties). For households with business experience, a 10% treatment intensity increase raises health spending by 5.4%. A simultaneous 10% treatment intensity and 1-unit transport spending increase boosts health expenditures by 5.8%, revealing how asset types shape urban-rural health spending differences. Furthermore, post-implementation, urban households' education expenditures significantly increased, while migrant households experienced a rise in guaranteed investment and a decline in out-of-pocket payments, though not statistically significant. Discussion: This study highlights the multifaceted impact of prudent financial policies on household health expenditures across urban and rural areas, underscoring the need for policy formulation to address the distinct needs of urban, rural, and migrant populations, thereby laying a more solid institutional foundation for universal health coverage.
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.