Li Yang, Zhao Yinjun, Yi Danhui, Wang Xiaojun, Jiang Yan, Wang Yu, Liu Xinchun, Ma Shuangge
School of Statistics, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
Center for Applied Statistics, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 10;12(11):e0187100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187100. eCollection 2017.
In China, the basic insurance system consists of three schemes: the UEBMI (Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance), URBMI (Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance), and NCMS (New Cooperative Medical Scheme), across which significant differences have been observed. Since 2009, the central government has been experimenting with consolidating these schemes in selected areas. This study examines whether differences still exist across schemes after the consolidation.
A survey was conducted in the city of Suzhou, collecting data on subjects 45 years old and above with at least one inpatient or outpatient treatment during a period of twelve months. Analysis on 583 subjects was performed comparing subjects' characteristics across insurance schemes. A resampling-based method was applied to compute the predicted gross medical cost, OOP (out-of-pocket) cost, and insurance reimbursement rate.
Subjects under different insurance schemes differ in multiple aspects. For inpatient treatments, subjects under the URBMI have the highest observed and predicted gross and OOP costs, while those under the UEBMI have the lowest. For outpatient treatments, subjects under the UEBMI and URBMI have comparable costs, while those under the NCMS have much lower costs. Subjects under the NCMS also have a much lower reimbursement rate.
Differences still exist across schemes in medical costs and insurance reimbursement rate post-consolidation. Further investigations are needed to identify the causes, and interventions are needed to eliminate such differences.
在中国,基本保险制度由三种方案组成:城镇职工基本医疗保险(UEBMI)、城镇居民基本医疗保险(URBMI)和新型农村合作医疗(NCMS),已观察到这些方案之间存在显著差异。自2009年以来,中央政府一直在部分地区试验整合这些方案。本研究考察整合后各方案之间是否仍存在差异。
在苏州市进行了一项调查,收集45岁及以上在十二个月内至少有一次住院或门诊治疗的受试者的数据。对583名受试者进行分析,比较不同保险方案下受试者的特征。采用基于重采样的方法计算预测的医疗总费用、自付费用和保险报销率。
不同保险方案下的受试者在多个方面存在差异。对于住院治疗,URBMI方案下的受试者观察到的和预测的医疗总费用及自付费用最高,而UEBMI方案下的受试者费用最低。对于门诊治疗,UEBMI和URBMI方案下的受试者费用相当,而NCMS方案下的受试者费用低得多。NCMS方案下的受试者报销率也低得多。
整合后各方案在医疗费用和保险报销率方面仍存在差异。需要进一步调查以确定原因,并需要采取干预措施消除此类差异。