Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40274717›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2025

Analysis of the role of medical insurance in the "Health shocks-consumption upgrading" model: evidence from China.

Qi Hu, Ennan Wang, Minglai Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Qi HuSchool of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, 18 Xueyuan Street, High-Tech Education Park, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310018, China.
Ennan WangSchool of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, 101 Longmian Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211100, China. wen@njmu.edu.cn.
Minglai ZhuSchool of Finance, Nankai University, 38 Tongyan Avenue, Tianjin, 300350, China.

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China's Youth Project 23CGL070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant health shocks worldwide, along with a certain burden on healthcare systems. China's healthcare security system has been continuously improved and has essentially achieved universal coverage. Moreover, the health impact of COVID-19 on the Chinese population is diminishing, and the trend of consumption upgrading is becoming more pronounced.

methodsBased on the Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans model, this study constructs a theoretical model of "health shocks-consumption upgrading" to deduce the impact of health shocks on consumption upgrading. We examine the results of the theoretical model using provincial panel data from China spanning from 2002 to 2019 and employing the system GMM estimation method. Furthermore, based on a moderation effect model, we explore the mechanism of basic medical insurance systems in this model.

resultsThe theoretical model deduces that health shocks lead to a decline in consumption upgrading, which is empirically confirmed. Additionally, the results of moderation effect analysis demonstrate that basic medical insurance systems play a positive moderating role in the "health shocks-consumption upgrading" model. Among the basic medical insurance systems, the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme (NRCMS) primarily acts as a positive moderator.

conclusionHealth shocks lead to consumption downgrading, while basic medical insurance systems help to diversify medical risks, alleviate health shocks, reduce precautionary savings, and thereby promote consumption upgrading.

Indexed as

Consumption upgradingHealth shocksMedical insurance

Identifiers

PMID40274717
PMCPMC12023390

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.