Bai Qian, Zhuang Hongyan, Hu Hanxu, Tuo Zegui, Zhang Jinglu, Huang Lieyu, Ma Yong, Shi Xuefeng, Bian Ying
State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macao.
The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China; Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
J Affect Disord. 2024 Apr 1;350:286-294. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.100. Epub 2024 Jan 12.
This study aimed to investigate the associations between provider payment methods and expenditure of depressive patients, stratified by service types and hospital levels.
We used a 5 % random sample of urban claims data in China (2013-2017), collected by China Health Insurance Research Association. Provider payment methods (fee-for-services, global budget, capitation, case-based and per-diem payments) were the explanatory variables. A generalized linear model was fitted for the associations between provider payment methods and expenditure. All analyses were adjusted for patient"cioeconomic and health-related characteristics.
In total, 64,615 depressive patient visits were included, 59,459 for outpatients and 5156 for inpatients. Female patients accounted for 63.00 %. The total and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure significantly differentiated by provider payments. Among outpatient services, when comparing with fee-for-services, capitation payment was associated with substantial marginal reduction in total and OOP expenditure (-$34.18, -$9.71) in primary institutes, yet increases ($27.26, $24.11) in secondary hospitals. Similarly, global budget was associated with lower total and OOP expenditure (-$13.51, -$1.61) in secondary hospitals, while higher total and OOP expenditure ($7.43, $32.27) in tertiary hospitals than fee-for-services. For inpatients, total and OOP expenditures under per-diem (-$857.65, -$283.48) and case-based payments (-$997.93, -$137.56) were remarkably smaller than those under fee-for-services in primary and secondary hospitals, respectively. Besides, case-base payment was only linked with the largest reduction in OOP expense (-$239.39) in inpatient services of tertiary hospitals.
Only urban claims data was included in this study, and investigations for rural population still warrant. And updated data are needed for future studies.
There were varying correlations between provider payment methods and expenditure, which differed by service types and hospital levels. These findings provided empirical evidence for optimizing the mixed payment methods for depression in China.
本研究旨在按服务类型和医院级别分层,调查医疗服务提供者支付方式与抑郁症患者支出之间的关联。
我们使用了中国健康保险研究协会收集的中国城市索赔数据的5%随机样本(2013 - 2017年)。医疗服务提供者支付方式(按服务收费、总额预算、按人头付费、按病例付费和按日付费)为解释变量。对医疗服务提供者支付方式与支出之间的关联进行广义线性模型拟合。所有分析均针对患者的社会经济和健康相关特征进行了调整。
总共纳入了64,615例抑郁症患者就诊病例,其中门诊患者59,459例,住院患者5156例。女性患者占63.00%。总支出和自付费用因医疗服务提供者支付方式而有显著差异。在门诊服务中,与按服务收费相比,在基层医疗机构,按人头付费与总支出和自付费用的大幅边际减少相关(分别减少34.18美元、9.71美元),而在二级医院则增加(分别增加27.26美元、24.11美元)。同样,与按服务收费相比,总额预算在二级医院与较低的总支出和自付费用相关(分别减少13.51美元、1.61美元),而在三级医院则与较高的总支出和自付费用相关(分别增加7.43美元、32.27美元)。对于住院患者,在基层和二级医院,按日付费(分别减少857.65美元、283.48美元)和按病例付费(分别减少997.93美元、137.56美元)下的总支出和自付费用明显低于按服务收费。此外,按病例付费仅与三级医院住院服务中自付费用的最大减少相关(减少239.39美元)。
本研究仅纳入了城市索赔数据,对农村人口的调查仍有必要。未来研究需要更新数据。
医疗服务提供者支付方式与支出之间存在不同的相关性,因服务类型和医院级别而异。这些发现为优化中国抑郁症的混合支付方式提供了实证依据。