4.7 Article

The Impact of the Long-Term Care Insurance on the Medical Expenses and Health Status in China

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.847822

Keywords

Long-Term Care Insurance; medical expenses; health status; difference-in-difference method; medical reform

Funding

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China
  2. Policy Research on the Informal Care for the Disabled Elderly in Rural China [19CSH071]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project [LQ20G030021]
  4. Elderly Care Services and its Multiple Effects in Zhejiang Province [LQ20G030021]
  5. Ministry of Education of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used CHARLS data and the DID method to evaluate the impact of the Long-Term Care Insurance policy on the medical expenses and health status of middle-aged and elder population. The empirical results show that LTCI implementation effectively reduced outpatient and inpatient visits and expenses, while also improving self-rated health and mental health.
Based on the panel data of China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) in 2011, 2015, and 2018, this paper used the difference-in-difference (DID) method to evaluate the implementation effect how the Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) policy impacted on the medical expenses and the health status of the middle-aged and elder population. The empirical results show that LTCI has reduced the outpatient and inpatient quantity by 0.1689 and 0.1093 per year, and cut the outpatient and inpatient expenses by 23.9% and 19.8% per year. Moreover, the implementation of LTCI has improved the self-rated health, the activity of daily living (ADL), as well as the mental health. These conclusions verify the implementation value of LTCI system and provide policy implications for the medical reform and the further LTCI implementation in a larger scale.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available