ArticleHealth policy and planning2026
Impact of integrated care models on inpatient costs and health services efficiency: evidence from a difference-in-differences analysis in China.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integrated care effectively addresses challenges like high costs and low efficiency in healthcare. This paper investigates the impact of integrated care models in urban China on inpatient costs and health services efficiency, and explores variations by age category, chronic disease status, and healthcare institution. Data is sourced from the insurance claims database in Guangzhou (2012-2015). Seven integrated care models are introduced at different times during the study period. The propensity score matching with staggered difference-in-differences approach is employed to examine the effects of integrated care models on inpatient costs [total inpatient costs and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending] and health services efficiency [length of stay (LOS)]. After matching, 147 healthcare institutions are included, with 44 in the intervention group and 103 in the control group. There are 1721 institution-month-level observations in the intervention group and 3746 observations in the control group. Integrated care models reduce total inpatient costs (6.6%), OOP spending (17.3%), and LOS (3.3%) across all healthcare institutions. For patients aged ≥60 years receiving care in primary/secondary care institutions, there are notable decreases in total inpatient costs, OOP spending, and LOS. However, for patients aged ≥60 years in tertiary care institutions, integrated care models do not significantly affect these three outcomes. Additionally, patients with chronic diseases in primary/secondary care institutions also experience reductions in total inpatient costs, OOP spending, and LOS. Integrated care models in urban China contribute to lower inpatient costs and higher health services efficiency, particularly for older adults and patients with chronic diseases who are receiving care in primary/secondary care institutions. These findings have important policy implications for the implementation of integrated care models in urban China.
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.