Abstract
Abstract
Background
The pursuit of equity is one of the basic principles behind the strengthening of health care reform. China’s new rural cooperative medical insurance (NRCMI) and urban residents’ basic medical insurance (URBMI) are both “equalized” in terms of fundraising and reimbursement. This paper studies the benefits equity under this “equalized” system.
Methods
The data analysed in this paper are from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) from 2014 to 2016, implemented by the Institute of Social Science Survey at Peking University. A two-part model and a binary choice model are used in the empirical test.
Results
The empirical test revealed that high-income people benefit more from basic medical insurance than low-income people. Mechanism analysis demonstrated that high-income people have higher medical insurance applicability and can utilize better health care. Since low-income people are unhealthier, inequity in benefits exacerbates health inequity. We also found that the benefits equity of URBMI is better than that of NRCMI.
Conclusions
The government needs to pay more attention to the issue of medical insurance inequity. We should consider allowing different income groups to pay different premiums according to their medical expenses or applying different reimbursement policies for different income groups.
Funder
Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference40 articles.
1. Bobo FT, Yesuf EA, Woldie M. Inequities in utilization of reproductive and maternal health services in Ethiopia. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0602-2.
2. Zhu K, Zhang L, Yuan S, Zhang X, Zhang Z. Health financing and integration of urban and rural residents’ basic medical insurance systems in China. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0690-z.
3. World Bank, 2004, Making services work for poor people, World Development Report.
4. Davoodi HR, Tiongson ER, Asawanuchit SS. Benefit incidence of public education and health spending worldwide: evidence from a new database. Poverty Public Pol. 2012;2(2):5–52.
5. Wagstaff A, Bilger M, Buisman LR, Bredenkamp C. Who benefits from government health spending and why? A global assessment. 2014.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献