Background Continuing Medical Education (CME) is an important part of the training process for health workers worldwide. In China, training in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) not only improves the expertise of medical workers, but also supports the Chinese Government’s policy of promoting TCM as an equal treatment to western medicine. CME, including learning Traditional Chinese Medicine Technologies (TCMTs), perform poorly and research into the motivation of health workers to engage in CME is urgently required. Using a discrete choice experiment, this study assessed the CME learning preferences of primary health workers, using TCMT as a case study of CME programs.Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment among health workers in Shandong Province, Guizhou Province, and Henan provinces from July 1, 2021 to October 1, 2022 on the TCMT learning preferences of primary health workers. The mixed logit model and latent class analysis model were used to analyze primary health workers’ TCMT learning preferences.Results A total of 1,063 respondents participated in this study, of which 1,001 (94.2%) passed the consistency test and formed the final sample. Our key finding was that there was three distinct classes of TCMT learner. Overall, the relative importance of the seven attributes impacting the learning of TCMTs was: learning expenses, expected TCMT efficacy, TCMT learning difficulty, TCMT mode of learning, TCMT type, time required to learn, and expected frequency of TCMT use. However, these attributes differed significantly across the three distinct classes of TCMT learner. Infrequent users (class 1) were concerned with learning expenses and learning difficulty; workaholics (class 2) focused on the mode of learning; and pragmatists (class 3) paid more attention to the expected TCMTC efficacy and the expected frequency of TCMT use. We recommend targeted strategies to motivate TCMT learning suited to the requirements of each class of TCMT learner.Conclusion Rather than a single TCMT medical education program for primary health workers, CME programs should be targeted at different classes of TCMT learner.

Background As the main cause of cancer death, lung cancer imposes seriously health and economic burdens on individuals, families, and the health system. In China, there is no national study analyzing the hospitalization expenditures of different payment methods by lung cancer inpatients. Based on the 2010–2016 database of insured urban resident lung cancer inpatients from the China Medical Insurance Research Association (CHIRA), this paper aims to investigate the characteristics and cost of hospitalized lung cancer patient, to examine the differences in hospital expenses and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses under four medical insurance payment methods: fee-for-service (FFS), per-diem payments, capitation payments (CAP) and case-based payments, and to explore the medical insurance payment method that can be conducive to controlling the cost of lung cancer. Method This is a 2010–2016, 7-year cross-sectional study. CHIRA data are not available to researchers after 2016. The Medical Insurance Database of CHIRA was screened using the international disease classification system to yield 28,200 inpatients diagnosed with lung cancer (ICD-10: C34, C34.0, C34.1, C34.2, C34.3, C34.8, C34.9). The study includes descriptive analysis and regression analysis based on generalized linear models (GLM). Results The average patient age was 63.4 years and the average length of hospital stay (ALOS) was 14.2 day; 60.7% of patients were from tertiary hospitals; and 45% were insured by FFS. The per-diem payment had the lowest hospital expenses (RMB7496.00/US$1176.87), while CAP had the lowest OOP expenses (RMB1328.18/US$208.52). Compared with FFS hospital expenses, per-diem was 21.3% lower (95% CI = -0.265, -0.215) and case-based payment was 8.4% lower (95% CI = -0.151, -0.024). Compared with the FFS, OOP expenses, per-diem payments were 9.2% lower (95% CI = -0.130, -0.063) and CAP was 15.1% lower (95% CI = -0.151, -0.024). Conclusion For lung cancer patients, per-diem payment generated the lowest hospital expenses, while CAP meant patients bore the lowest OOP costs. Policy makers are suggested to give priority to case-based payments to achieve a tripartite balance among medical insurers, hospitals, and insured members. We also recommend future studies comparing the disparities of various diseases for the cause of different medical insurance schemes.

Background：As the main cause of cancer death, lung cancer imposes seriously health and economic burdens on individuals, families, and the health system. In China, there is no national study analyzing the hospitalization expenditures of different payment methods by lung cancer inpatients. Based on the 2010-2016 database of insured urban resident lung cancer inpatients from the China Medical Insurance Research Association (CHIRA), this paper examines the differences in hospital expenses and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses under four medical insurance payment methods: fee-for-service (FFS), per-diem payments, capitation payments (CAP) and case-based payments, and then explores the medical insurance payment method most conducive to controlling the cost of lung cancer. Method: This is a 2010-2016, 7-year cross-sectional study. CHIRA data are not available to researchers after 2016. The Medical Insurance Database of CHIRA was screened using the international disease classification system to yield 28200 inpatients diagnosed with lung cancer (ICD-10: C34, C34.0, C34.1, C34.2, C34.3, C34.8, C34.9). The study includes descriptive analysis and regression analysis based on generalized linear models (GLM). Results： The average patient age was 63.4 years and the average length of hospital stay (ALOS) was 14.2 day; 60.7% of patients were from tertiary hospitals; and 45% were insured by FFS. The per-diem payment had the lowest hospital expenses (RMB7496.00/US$1176.87), while CAP had the lowest OOP expenses (RMB1328.18/US$208.52). Compared with FFS hospital expenses, per-diem was 21.3% lower (95% CI=-0.265, -0.215) and case-based payment was 8.4% lower (95% CI=-0.151, -0.024). Compared with the FFS, OOP expenses, per-diem payments were 9.2% lower (95% CI=-0.130, -0.063) and CAP was 15.1% lower (95% CI=-0.151, -0.024). Conclusion：For lung cancer patients, per-diem payment generated the lowest hospital expenses, while CAP meant patients bore the lowest OOP costs. Facing major diseases such as lung cancer, priority should be given to reducing OOP expenses and implementing CAP. But policy makers should also consider case-based payments to achieve a tripartite balance among medical insurers, hospitals, and insured members. We recommend comparative future studies of the impact of medical insurance schemes on patients suffering other diseases.