We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Influencing factors of inequity in health services utilization among the elderly in China.
International Journal for Equity in Health 2018 September 16
BACKGROUND: With the rise of the aging population, it is particularly important for health services to be used fairly and reasonably in the elderly. This study aimed to assess the present inequality and horizontal inequity for health service use among the elderly in China and to identify the main determinants associated with the disparity.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on the sample of the survey of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) for 2015. The elderly was defined as individuals aged 60 and above, with a total of 7836 participants. We used the concentration index (CI) and the horizontal inequity (HI) to measure the inequity of the utilization of health services. The method of concentration index decomposition was utilized to measure the contribution of various influential factors to the overall unfairness.
RESULTS: The CI for the probability and the frequency of outpatient use were 0.1102 and 0.1015, respectively, and the corresponding values of inpatient use were 0.2777 and 0.2980, respectively. The household consumption expenditure disparity was the greatest inequality factor favoring the better-off. The Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance made a pro-wealth contribution to inequality in frequency of health services utilization (17.58% for outpatient and 13.40% for inpatient). The contributions of New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme on reducing unfairness in inpatient use were limited (- 2.23% for probability of inpatient use and - 5.89% for frequency of inpatient use).
CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong pro-rich inequality in both the probability and the frequency of use for health services among the elderly in China. The medical insurance was not enough to address this inequity, and different medical insurance schemes had different effects on the unfairness of health service utilization.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on the sample of the survey of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) for 2015. The elderly was defined as individuals aged 60 and above, with a total of 7836 participants. We used the concentration index (CI) and the horizontal inequity (HI) to measure the inequity of the utilization of health services. The method of concentration index decomposition was utilized to measure the contribution of various influential factors to the overall unfairness.
RESULTS: The CI for the probability and the frequency of outpatient use were 0.1102 and 0.1015, respectively, and the corresponding values of inpatient use were 0.2777 and 0.2980, respectively. The household consumption expenditure disparity was the greatest inequality factor favoring the better-off. The Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance made a pro-wealth contribution to inequality in frequency of health services utilization (17.58% for outpatient and 13.40% for inpatient). The contributions of New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme on reducing unfairness in inpatient use were limited (- 2.23% for probability of inpatient use and - 5.89% for frequency of inpatient use).
CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong pro-rich inequality in both the probability and the frequency of use for health services among the elderly in China. The medical insurance was not enough to address this inequity, and different medical insurance schemes had different effects on the unfairness of health service utilization.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app