↓ Skip to main content

Outcome-based health equity across different social health insurance schemes for the elderly in China

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Outcome-based health equity across different social health insurance schemes for the elderly in China
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1261-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoting Liu, Hung Wong, Kai Liu

Abstract

Against the achievement of nearly universal coverage for social health insurance for the elderly in China, a problem of inequity among different insurance schemes on health outcomes is still a big challenge for the health care system. Whether various health insurance schemes have divergent effects on health outcome is still a puzzle. Empirical evidence will be investigated in this study. This study employs a nationally representative survey database, the National Survey of the Aged Population in Urban/Rural China, to compare the changes of health outcomes among the elderly before and after the reform. A one-way ANOVA is utilized to detect disparities in health care expenditures and health status among different health insurance schemes. Multiple Linear Regression is applied later to examine the further effects of different insurance plans on health outcomes while controlling for other social determinants. The one-way ANOVA result illustrates that although the gaps in insurance reimbursements between the Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) and the other schemes, the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) and Urban Residents Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI) decreased, out-of-pocket spending accounts for a larger proportion of total health care expenditures, and the disparities among different insurances enlarged. Results of the Multiple Linear Regression suggest that UEBMI participants have better self-reported health status, physical functions and psychological wellbeing than URBMI and NCMS participants, and those uninsured. URBMI participants report better self-reported health than NCMS ones and uninsured people, while having worse psychological wellbeing compared with their NCMS counterparts. This research contributes to a transformation in health insurance studies from an emphasis on the opportunity-oriented health equity measured by coverage and healthcare accessibility to concern with outcome-based equity composed of health expenditure and health status. The results indicate that fragmented health insurance schemes generate inequitable health care utilization and health outcomes for the elderly. This study re-emphasizes the importance of reforming health insurance systems based on their health outcome rather than entitlement, which will particularly benefit the most vulnerable older groups.

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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,982,435
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,785
of 7,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,160
of 399,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#82
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 399,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.