4.1 Article

Global budget payment system helps to reduce outpatient medical expenditure of hypertension in China

Journal

SPRINGERPLUS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3565-7

Keywords

China; Global budget; Fee for service; Medical expenditure; Hypertension; Health care reform

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: As healthcare spending continues to increase, medical insurance is now under great pressure of growing economic burden. To control the excessive growth of medical expenditure, change of medical payment system was clearly put forward in China's new healthcare reform. With this end, Tianjin, a large city in North China, is now exploring to replace traditional fee-for-service (FFS) with global budget payment system (GBPS), and actual effects of GBPS needs to be assessed. Methods: Data of this study is from the 2013 National Health Services Utilization Survey among patients of Urban Basic Medical Insurance in China, containing 102,492 outpatient visits of 21,925 hypertensive patients to Tianjin's primary hospitals in 2013. t test was used to compare the difference between continuous variables. A linear regression analysis was also done to identify possible risk factors of medical expenditure. Results: On the basis of expenditure per capital, GBPS, compared with FFS, has significantly reduced total medical expense (CNY 640.28 vs. CNY 700.64, p < 0.001), medical insurance (MI) fund expense (CNY 491.87 vs. CNY 532.37, p < 0.001) and out-of-pocket (OOP) expense (CNY 148.42 vs. CNY 168.27, p < 0.001). Results of generalized linear regression also show that younger people, female and GBPS independently predict less total medical expense, MI fund expense and OOP expense. Conclusions: Compared with FFS, GBPS can help reduce total medical expense, MI fund expense and OOP expense significantly. This study offers evidence for wider implementation of GBPS in China.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available