↓ Skip to main content

Equity in health financing of Guangxi after China’s universal health coverage: evidence based on health expenditure comparison in rural Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region from 2009 to 2013

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Equity in health financing of Guangxi after China’s universal health coverage: evidence based on health expenditure comparison in rural Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region from 2009 to 2013
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0669-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xianjing Qin, Hongye Luo, Jun Feng, Yanning Li, Bo Wei, Qiming Feng

Abstract

Healthcare financing should be equitable. Fairness in financial contribution and protection against financial risk is based on the notion that every household should pay a fair share. Health policy makers have long been concerned with protecting people from the possibility that ill health will lead to catastrophic financial payments and subsequent impoverishment. A number of studies on health care financing equity have been conducted in some provinces of China, but in Guangxi, we found such observation is not enough. What is the situation in Guagnxi? A research on rural areas of Guangxi can add knowledge in this field and help improve the equity and efficiency of health financing, particularly in low-income citizens in rural countries, is a major concern in China's medical sector reform. Socio-economic characteristics and healthcare payment data were obtained from two rounds of household surveys conducted in 2009 (4634 respondents) and 2013 (3951 respondents). The contributions of funding sources were determined and a progressivity analysis of government healthcare subsidies was performed. Household consumption expenditure and total healthcare payments were calculated and incidence and intensity of catastrophic health payments were measured. Summary indices (concentration index, Kakwani index and Gini coefficient) were obtained for the sources of healthcare financing: indirect taxes, out of pocket payments, and social insurance contributions. The overall health-care financing system was regressive. In 2013, the Kakwani index was 0.0013, the vertical effect of all the three funding sources was 0.0001, and some values exceeded 100%, indicating that vertical inequity had a large influence on causing total health financing inequity. The headcount of catastrophic health payment declined sharply between 2009 and 2013, using total expenditure (from 7.3% to 1.2%) or non-food expenditure (from 26.1% to 7.5%) as the indicator of household capacity to pay. Our study demonstrates an inequitable distribution of government healthcare subsidies in China from 2009 to 2013, and the inequity was reduced, especially in rural areas. Future healthcare reforms in China should not only focus on expanding the coverage, but also on improving the equity of distribution of healthcare benefits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 12 12%
Other 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,801,776
of 24,242,692 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#497
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,945
of 324,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#18
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,242,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.