ArticleBMC public health2025
Does the hierarchical medical system enhance healthcare utilization and equity in China? a longitudinal study 2012-2018.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Insurance-related differences in high-intensity care utilization among older patients with cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare inequities pose a substantial challenge to achieving universal health coverage, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Chinese government implemented Hierarchical Medical System (HMS) to optimize resource allocation and improve healthcare access. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of HMS on healthcare utilization and the inequities.
methodsThis study utilized longitudinal data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) conducted in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, which included a final sample of 105,335 individuals. A multiple-period difference-in-differences method was employed to explore the impact on outpatient and inpatient utilization across socioeconomic dimensions. The concentration Index and the horizontal inequity index (HI) were used to assess inequities in healthcare utilization. Additionally, a decomposition analysis was performed to identify the contributors to inequalities.
resultsHMS demonstrated significant negative impacts on both outpatient and inpatient utilization (OR = 0.825, SE = 0.058; OR = 0.869, SE = 0.071, respectively), with a short-term decline in outpatient services and a lasting reduction in inpatient services. The heterogeneity tests revealed a pronounced impact in central and rural areas. The results indicated pro-poor inequities in outpatient utilization and pro-rich inequities in inpatient utilization. HMS reduced inequalities and inequities in healthcare utilization, particularly for outpatient services. HI in inpatient services increased in the initial year but decreased after 2 years of HMS. The decomposition analyses identified the primary contributors as economic level and health status. While the economic level exacerbated inequalities, health insurance and higher educational attainment mitigated inequalities in healthcare utilization.
conclusionHMS had an unintended impact on decreasing healthcare utilization in China. HMS improved equity in outpatient utilization, it faced challenges in enhancing equity in inpatient utilization. Policymakers should prioritize strengthening primary care infrastructure in central and rural areas, ensuring affordable healthcare models, reinforcing educational attainment, and expanding health insurance coverage to promote equity in healthcare utilization. These findings provide crucial insights for guiding equitable healthcare reform in LMICs and advancing progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.
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.