ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024
Does vertical integration increase the costs for primary care inpatients? Evidence from a national pilot programme in China.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of vertical integration (VI) within County-Level Integrated Health Organisations (CIHOs) on the costs of primary care inpatients.
methodsThis study assessed Xishui, a national pilot county for CIHOs, using inpatient claims data. The treatment group comprised 10,118 inpatients from 5 vertically integrated township health centres (THCs), while the control group consisted of 21,165 inpatients from 19 non-vertically integrated THCs. The periods from July 2020 to December 2021 and January 2022 to December 2022 were defined as pre- and post-policy intervention, respectively. The primary outcome variables were total health expenditures (THS), out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, and the proportion of OOP expenditures. Propensity score matching was employed to align inpatient demographics and disease characteristics between the groups, followed by a difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate the outcomes.
findingsVI significantly increased THS (β = 0.1337, p < 0.01) and OOP expenditures per case (β = 0.1661, p < 0.001), but the increase in the proportion of OOP expenditures per case was not significant (β = 0.0029, p > 0.05). For the basic medical insurance for urban and rural residents, THS per case (β = 0.1343, p < 0.01) and OOP expenditures (β = 0.1714, p < 0.001) significantly increased. For the basic medical insurance system for employees, THS per case also increased significantly (β = 0.1238, p < 0.01), but the change in OOP expenditure proportion per case was not significant (β = 0.1020, p > 0.05). The THS per case led by Xishui County People's Hospital, the leading county medical sub-centre (CMSC), significantly increased (β = 0.1753, p < 0.01), whereas the increase led by Xishui County Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital was not significant (β = 0.0742, p > 0.05). Increases in OOP expenditures per case were significant in CMSCs led by the People's Hospital and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital (β = 0.1782, p < 0.01 and β = 0.0757, p < 0.05, respectively).
conclusionVI significantly increased THS and OOP expenditures for primary care inpatients. However, VI could exacerbate economic disparities in disease burden across different insurance categories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.