4.6 Article

Differences exist across insurance schemes in China post-consolidation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187100

关键词

-

资金

  1. Yale MacMillan Center
  2. Community Foundation for Greater New Haven
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71771211]
  4. National Social Science Foundation of China [13ZD164]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In China, the basic insurance system consists of three schemes: the UEBMI (Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance), URBMI (Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance), and NCMS (New Cooperative Medical Scheme), across which significant differences have been observed. Since 2009, the central government has been experimenting with consolidating these schemes in selected areas. This study examines whether differences still exist across schemes after the consolidation. Methods A survey was conducted in the city of Suzhou, collecting data on subjects 45 years old and above with at least one inpatient or outpatient treatment during a period of twelve months. Analysis on 583 subjects was performed comparing subjects' characteristics across insurance schemes. A resampling-based method was applied to compute the predicted gross medical cost, OOP (out-of-pocket) cost, and insurance reimbursement rate. Results Subjects under different insurance schemes differ in multiple aspects. For inpatient treatments, subjects under the URBMI have the highest observed and predicted gross and OOP costs, while those under the UEBMI have the lowest. For outpatient treatments, subjects under the UEBMI and URBMI have comparable costs, while those under the NCMS have much lower costs. Subjects under the NCMS also have a much lower reimbursement rate. Conclusions Differences still exist across schemes in medical costs and insurance reimbursement rate post-consolidation. Further investigations are needed to identify the causes, and interventions are needed to eliminate such differences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据