Tracking progress towards universal health coverage for essential health services in China, 2008–2018

Abstract

IntroductionWe comprehensively evaluate whether the Chinese Government’s goal of ensuring Universal Health Coverage for essential health services has been achieved.MethodsWe used data from the 2008, 2013 and 2018 National Health Services Survey to report on the coverage of a range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicator 3.8.1. We created per capita household income deciles for urban and rural samples separately. We report time trends in coverage and the slope index (SII) and relative index (RII).ResultsDespite much lower levels of income and education, rural populations made as much progress as their urban counterparts for most interventions. Coverage of maternal and child health interventions increased substantially in urban and rural areas, with decreasing rich-poor inequalities except for antenatal care. In rural China, one-fifth women could not access 5 or more antenatal visits. Coverage of 8 or more visits were 34% and 68%, respectively in decile D1 (the poorest) and decile D10 (the richest) (SII 35% (95% CI 22% to 48%)). More than 90% households had access to clean water, but basic sanitation was poor for rural households and the urban poorest, presenting bottom inequality. Effective coverage for non-communicable diseases was low. Medication for hypertension and diabetes were relatively high (>70%). But adequate management, counting in preventive interventions, were much lower and decreased overtime, although inequalities were small in size. Screening of cervical and breast cancer was low in both urban and rural areas, seeing no progress overtime. Cervical cancer screening was only 29% (urban) and 24% (rural) in 2018, presenting persisted top inequalities (SII 25% urban, 14% rural).ConclusionChina has made commendable progress in protecting the poorest for basic care. However, the ‘leaving no one behind’ agenda needs a strategy targeting the entire population rather than only the poorest. Blunt investing in primary healthcare facilities seems neither effective nor efficient.