↓ Skip to main content

The distribution of benefits under China’s new rural cooperative medical system: evidence from western rural China

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
The distribution of benefits under China’s new rural cooperative medical system: evidence from western rural China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0852-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sha Lai, Chi Shen, Yongjian Xu, Xiaowei Yang, Yafei Si, Jianmin Gao, Zhongliang Zhou, Gang Chen

Abstract

China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) enables insured citizens to enjoy the same benefit package by paying a flat-rate premium. However, it still remains uncertain whether economically disadvantaged enrollees receive insurance benefits that at least match those of non-disadvantaged enrollees. This article, therefore, estimates the distribution of benefits under the NCMS across economic groups and compares the magnitude of economic-related inequity changes in the NCMS benefits. Data were drawn from two-wave large-scale representative and comparable cross-sectional household health survey datasets conducted in Shaanxi Province in 2008 and 2013. In total, 9506 (2008) and 38,010 (2013) NCMS enrollees were included. The benefits from the NCMS are measured in two ways: via the probability of receiving reimbursements and via the absolute amount of the obtained reimbursements. Two-part models were used to estimate the benefit distribution and to adjust benefits for health care needs. Concentration curve, dominance test of the concentration curve, and concentration index (CI) were used to estimate the overall degree of economic-related inequality. The degree of horizontal inequity was estimated via indirectly standardized measures based on the "equal treatment for equal needs" concept. Our results indicate that economically affluent groups were more likely to receive reimbursements from the NCMS, and these reimbursements were also higher. Positive need-adjusted CIs for the probability of receiving reimbursements (CIs: 0.2027/0.1056 in 2008/2013) and the absolute amount of reimbursements (CIs: 0.3002/0.1660 in 2008/2013) further suggest the existence of clear pro-rich horizontal inequities in the benefits distribution under the NCMS. Encouragingly, a decreasing trend could be observed from 2008 to 2013, which suggests that horizontal inequities in NCMS benefits that favored the rich decreased over the investigated period, while the level of insurance benefits improved. Our study suggests that the benefits of NCMS are concentrated toward economically affluent groups. Although any trade-off between policy feasibility and equity has become a challenge for the formulation of social health insurance funding and benefit packages in developing countries, inequality can be gradually reduced through continuous adjustment of the medical insurance scheme, thus effectively targeting economically disadvantaged enrollees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 21 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 15 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,129,510
of 23,842,189 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#146
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,319
of 337,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,842,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 337,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.