ArticleHealth policy and planning2025
The impacts of removing pharmaceutical co-payments for chronic conditions at primary care level: a pilot study in rural China.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a free medication policy on blood pressure among older patients with hypertension: an interrupted time series analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- The cost-effectiveness of value-based insurance design initiatives in managing cardiometabolic diseases: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The underutilization of primary care (PC) presents a substantial challenge in enhancing the people-centeredness, quality, and efficiency of health services for patients with chronic diseases. Pharmaceutical copayments have been considered a key barrier to patient access in low- and middle-income countries. It is unclear whether the removal of pharmaceutical copayment can lead to better care and management of chronic diseases. This study sought to evaluate the impact on healthcare utilization and spending of a policy that waived fees for essential pharmaceuticals at PC facilities, piloted county-wide from 2014 in rural China. Using individual claims data from 2010 to 2017, we applied a synthetic difference-in-difference approach to estimate the policy's effects. Our sample included 9115 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes from the pilot county and 30 675 patients from the other counties in the same municipality. The policy led to a significant increase of 0.69 in the number of PC visits per patient per year (95% CI: 0.46-0.91), equivalent to a rise of 44.1%. Annual spending per person on outpatients at PC facilities increased significantly due to the policy, by 58 yuan (95% CI: 36-80), equivalent to a rise of 40.5%. As for outpatient visits at hospitals, there was a 25.8% significant reduction in the number of visits per year (-0.56; 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.16) and a nonsignificant increase in spending (45 yuan; 95% CI: -111 to 21). The annual number of admissions and spending on inpatients per person in all facilities remained stable. Using claims data, we have demonstrated that targeted removal of copayment for essential medicines successfully shifted outpatient visits and expenditure from hospitals to PC facilities but did not affect hospitalization and inpatient expenditure. Further research may be attempted to see if removing pharmaceutical copayments on people with less severe NCDs could reduce hospitalizations.
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.