Non-evidence-based policy: How effective is China's new cooperative medical scheme in reducing medical impoverishment?
In recent years, many lower to middle income countries have looked to insurance as a means to protect their populations from medical impoverishment. In 2003, the Chinese government initiated the New Cooperative Medical System (NCMS), a government-run voluntary insurance program for its rural population. The prevailing model of NCMS combines medical savings accounts with high-deductible catastrophic hospital insurance (MSA/Catastrophic). To assess the effectiveness of this approach in reducing medical impoverishment, we used household survey data from 2006 linked to claims records of health expenditures to simulate the effect of MSA/Catastrophic on reducing the share of individuals falling below the poverty line (headcount), and the amount by which household resources fall short of the poverty line (poverty gap) due to medical expenses. We compared the effects of MSA/Catastrophic to Rural Mutual Health Care (RMHC), an experimental model that provides first dollar coverage for primary care, hospital services and drugs with a similar premium but a lower ceiling. Our results show that RMHC is more effective at reducing medical impoverishment than NCMS. Under the internationally accepted poverty line of US$1.08 per person per day, the MSA/Catastrophic models would reduce the poverty headcount by 3.5-3.9% and the average poverty gap by 11.8-16.4%, compared with reductions of 6.1-6.8% and 15-18.5% under the RMHC model. The primary reason for this is that NCMS does not address a major cause of medical impoverishment: expensive outpatient services for chronic conditions. As such, health policymakers need first to examine the disease profile and health expenditure pattern of a population before they can direct resources to where they will be most effective. As chronic diseases impose a growing share of the burden on the population in developing countries, it is not necessarily true that insurance coverage focusing on expensive hospital care alone is the most effective at providing financial risk protection.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 68 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:2:p:201-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.