↓ Skip to main content

Health financing and integration of urban and rural residents’ basic medical insurance systems in China

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Health financing and integration of urban and rural residents’ basic medical insurance systems in China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0690-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kun Zhu, Luying Zhang, Shasha Yuan, Xiaojuan Zhang, Zhiruo Zhang

Abstract

China is in the process of integrating the new cooperative medical scheme (NCMS) and the urban residents' basic medical insurance system (URBMI) into the urban and rural residents' basic medical insurance system (URRBMI). However, how to integrate the financing policies of NCMS and URBMI has not been described in detail. This paper attempts to illustrate the differences between the financing mechanisms of NCMS and URBMI, to analyze financing inequity between urban and rural residents and to identify financing mechanisms for integrating urban and rural residents' medical insurance systems. Financing data for NCMS and URBMI (from 2008 to 2015) was collected from the China health statistics yearbook, the China health and family planning statistics yearbook, the National Handbook of NCMS Information, the China human resources and social security statistics yearbook, and the China social security yearbook. "Ability to pay" was introduced to measure inequity in health financing. Individual contributions to NCMS and URBMI as a function of per capita disposable income was used to analyze equity in health financing between rural and urban residents. URBMI had a financing mechanism that was similar to that used by NCMS in that public finance accounted for more than three quarters of the pooling funds. The scale of financing for NCMS was less than 5% of the per capita net income of rural residents and less than 2% of the per capita disposable income of urban residents for URBMI. Individual contributions to the NCMS and URBMI funds were less than 1% of their disposable and net incomes. Inequity in health financing between urban and rural residents in China was not improved as expected with the introduction of NCMS and URBMI. The role of the central government and local governments in financing NCMS and URBMI was oscillating in the past decade. The scale of financing for URRBMI is insufficient for the increasing demands for medical services from the insured. The pooling fund should be increased so that it can better adjust to China's rapidly aging population and epidemiological transitions as well as protect the insured from poverty due to illness. Individual contributions to the URBMI and NCMS funds were small in terms of contributors' incomes. The role of the central government and local governments in financing URRBMI was not clearly identified. Individual contributions to the URRBMI fund should be increased to ensure the sustainable development of URRBMI. Compulsory enrollment should be required so that URRBMI improves the social medical insurance system in China.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 43 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Social Sciences 16 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 44 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,865,982
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,060
of 1,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,182
of 331,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 51% of its contemporaries.