Assessing equity in benefit distribution of government health subsidy in 2012 across East China: benefit incidence analysis

Abstract

BackgroundImproving the equitable benefit distribution of government health subsidies, particularly among the country’s poorer socioeconomic groups, is a major goal of China’s healthcare sector reform.MethodsBenefit incidence analysis was employed to measure the distribution of government health subsidies by income quintile. The concentration index (CI) of different levels of health care facility in urban and rural areas was calculated. A household survey complete through multistage stratified sampling was conducted in 2013 in urban areas (16,908 respondents) and rural areas (19,525 respondents).ResultsThe overall CI for urban patients was 0.1068 for outpatient care and 0.1237 for inpatient care. For outpatient care, the CI was 0.0795, 0.0465 and 0.3456, respectively, at primary, secondary and tertiary health care facilities; for inpatient care, the CI was −0.2179, 0.0752 and 0.2883 at the corresponding facility levels. The overall CI for rural outpatients was −0.0659 and 0.0036 for inpatients. For outpatient care, the CI was −0.0818, 0.0567 and 0.0271 at primary, secondary and tertiary facilities, respectively; for inpatient care, the CI was −0.0050, 0.0084 and 0.0252 at the corresponding facility levels.ConclusionsChina’s primary level health care facilities were found to have a more equitable benefit distribution of government health subsidies than the secondary- and tertiary- level facilities. Increased government budget allocations and insurance imbursement rates, and the provision of technical support and qualified medical staff to lower-level hospitals were key factors. However, the provision of equal subsidies to all socioeconomic levels was found to be a potential threat to the equity of government health subsidy distribution.

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

“…For township health centers, deductibles were even removed, and reimbursement rates were raised to 90% or 100%. Numerous findings show that the poor were more likely to seek treatment in primary-level health-care facilities [ 48 ]. This design has lowered the threshold and economic burden for seeking treatment for enrollees with low economic background, thus benefitting the poor who need healthcare services from the medical insurance.…”

Geographic distribution indices of general practitioners, midwives, pediatricians, and gynecologists in the public sector of Iran

“…However, ideal health outcomes are directly dependent on the distribution of the health workforces ( 6 ), and evidence shows there are tight relationships between number and quality of health workforces and primary health care services, vaccination coverage and maternal mortality rate ( 7 , 8 ). Often, there are many inequalities in the distribution of healthcare personnel within countries and between regions and provinces of a country ( 9 – 11 ). It is a considerable problem in developing countries that health-related workforce is condensed in big towns and cities, and rural regions are allocated only 23% and 38% of the country’s general practitioners and nurses, and these inequities resist against the changes ( 12 ).…”

The impacts of implementation of National Essential Medicines Policies on primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional study in China

“…Nonetheless, the results in our study showed almost no differences between two groups in the rural areas. This implied that the implementation of NEMPs may have been obstructed in rural areas, when several studies attributed the obstruction to the deficiency [ 40 ] and inequity [ 41 – 43 ] of financial subsidies. Also, Table 2 shows the financial subsidies did not change after the introduction of NEMPs in the rural areas, resulting in the amount ratio and the income ratio of EMs did not change (Table 4 ).…”