Background
Methods
Study participants
Data collection
Definitions
Data analysis
Results
Characteristic | Patients No. | Percent |
---|---|---|
Observations | 347 | 100.0 |
Sites | ||
Zhenjiang | 39 | 11.2 |
Yichang | 130 | 37.5 |
Hanzhong | 178 | 51.3 |
Gender | ||
Male | 260 | 74.9 |
Female | 87 | 25.1 |
Age (years) | ||
≤40 | 57 | 16.4 |
41–59 | 148 | 42.7 |
≥60 | 142 | 40.9 |
Type of TB case | ||
New | 288 | 83.0 |
Relapse | 59 | 17.0 |
Education | ||
None | 66 | 19.0 |
Primary school | 113 | 32.6 |
Junior school | 128 | 36.9 |
Senior school or above | 40 | 11.5 |
Marital Status | ||
Married | 284 | 81.8 |
Single | 16 | 4.6 |
Bereft of spouse | 47 | 13.5 |
Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
Average capacity to pay (US$) (A1) | 2436.6 (1781.0)b
| 3242.8 (2245.4) | 5143.7 (3219.3) | 3042.9 (2268.5) |
Average food expenditure (US$) (A2) | 958.0 (444.8) | 1157.5 (501.9) | 1906.7 (708.4) | 1139.4 (530.1) |
Ratios of A2 versus A1 | 1 : 2.54 | 1 : 2.80 | 1 : 2.70 | 1 : 2.67 |
Total expenditure on TB care (US$c) | 1696.6 (1201.1) | 1257.7 (911.4) | 2226.9 (904.4) | 1591.8 (1074.4) |
OOPd payments for TB care (US$) | 1094.1 (900.5) | 898.9 (736.5) | 1592.8 (649.5) | 1077.0 (817.4) |
OOP payments share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 64.5 | 71.5 | 71.5 | 67.7 |
Reimbursement from health insurance system (US$) | 589.2 | 304.6 | 619.0 | 485.9 |
NCMS share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 34.7 | 24.2 | 27.8 | 30.5 |
Subsidies from government and other sources (US$) | 13.4 | 54.25 | 15.1 | 28.9 |
Subsidy share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 0.8 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 1.8 |
Households with catastrophic expenditure (%) | ||||
Before reimbursement (C
B
)
| 63.5 | 50.8 | 59.0 | 58.2 |
After reimbursement (C
A
)
| 51.1 | 39.2 | 51.3 | 46.7 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (C
S
)
| 50.6 | 39.2 | 48.7 | 46.1 |
Difference (%) | ||||
C
B
-C
A
| 12.4 | 11.6 | 7.7 | 11.5 |
C
A
-C
S
| 0.6 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.6 |
C
B
-C
A
-C
S
| 13.0 | 11.6 | 10.3 | 12.1 |
Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
Mean Catastrophic Payment Gap (%) | ||||
Before reimbursement (MG
B
)
| 155.2 | 51.7 | 85.4 | 97.4 |
After reimbursement (MG
A
)
| 68.6 | 35.5 | 43.0 | 52.9 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (MG
S
)
| 65.6 | 31.3 | 42.7 | 49.8 |
Mean positive gap (%) | ||||
Before reimbursement (MPG
B
)
| 237.7 | 115.4 | 153.7 | 186.8 |
After reimbursement (MPG
A
)
| 161.8 | 105.6 | 91.0 | 135.8 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (MPG
S
)
| 157.3 | 98.2 | 90.5 | 130.0 |
Difference (%) | ||||
MG
B
-MG
A
| 86.6 | 16.2 | 42.4 | 44.5 |
MG
A
-MG
S
| 3.0 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 3.1 |
MPG
B
-MPG
A
| 75.9 | 9.8 | 62.7 | 51.0 |
MPG
A
-MPG
S
| 4.5 | 7.4 | 0.5 | 5.8 |
Characteristic | Hpre (%) | Hoop (%) | Impoverished (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Study locations | |||
Hanzhong
| 26.4 | 44.4 | 18.0 |
Yichang
| 12.3 | 26.2 | 13.1 |
Zhenjiang
| 10.3 | 25.6 | 15.3 |
Household income quintilesa
| |||
Q1
| 60.6 | 84.4 | 13.8 |
Q2
| 1.8 | 29.8 | 28.0 |
Q3
| 0.0 | 12.3 | 12.3 |
Q4
| 0.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
Total | 19.3 | 35.4 | 16.1 |
Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
Poverty line (US$a) | 366.2 | 366.2 | 366.2 | 366.2 |
Poverty headcounts (%) | ||||
Before reimbursement (P
B
)
| 53.4 | 31.5 | 30.8 | 42.7 |
After reimbursement (P
A
)
| 44.4 | 26.2 | 25.6 | 35.4 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (P
S
)
| 44.4 | 26.2 | 25.6 | 35.4 |
Difference (%) | ||||
P
B
-P
A
| 9.0 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 7.3 |
P
A
-P
S
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
Poverty gap (US$a) | ||||
Pre-payment (PG
pre
)
| 45.2 | 14.0 | 8.6 | 26.0 |
Before reimbursement (PG
B
)
| 465.6 | 188.8 | 237.4 | 297.7 |
After reimbursement (PG
A
)
| 285.9 | 118.9 | 126.7 | 181.9 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (PG
S
)
| 280.1 | 106.6 | 120.6 | 174.5 |
Difference (US$) | ||||
PG
B
-PG
A
| 179.7 | 69.9 | 110.7 | 115.8 |
PG
A
-PG
S
| 5.8 | 12.3 | 6.1 | 7.4 |
PG
B
-PG
pre
| 420.4 | 164.8 | 228.8 | 271.7 |
PG
S
-PG
pre
| 234.9 | 92.6 | 112.0 | 148.5 |
Normalized poverty gap (%) | ||||
Pre-payment (NPG
pre
)
| 12.3 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 7.1 |
Before reimbursement (NPG
B
)
| 127.1 | 51.6 | 64.8 | 81.3 |
After reimbursement (NPG
A
)
| 78.1 | 32.5 | 34.6 | 49.7 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (NPG
S
)
| 76.5 | 29.1 | 32.9 | 47.7 |
Difference (%) | ||||
NPG
B
-NPG
A
| 49.1 | 19.1 | 30.2 | 31.6 |
NPG
A
-NPG
S
| 1.6 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 2.0 |
NPG
B
-NPG
pre
| 114.8 | 47.7 | 62.5 | 74.2 |
NPG
S
-NPG
pre
| 64.1 | 25.3 | 30.6 | 40.6 |
Mean positive poverty gap (US$) | ||||
Pre-payment (MPPG
pre
)
| 171.2 | 113.8 | 83.5 | 134.7 |
Before reimbursement (MPPG
B
)
| 871.9 | 599.4 | 770.8 | 697.2 |
After reimbursement (MPPG
A
)
| 643.9 | 453.8 | 494.9 | 513.8 |
After reimbursement and subsidies (MPPG
S
)
| 630.9 | 406.9 | 471.1 | 492.9 |
Difference (US$) | ||||
MPPG
B
-MPPG
A
| 228.0 | 145.5 | 275.9 | 183.3 |
MPPG
A
-MPPG
S
| 13.1 | 46.9 | 23.8 | 20.9 |
MPPG
B
-MPPG
pre
| 700.7 | 485.5 | 687.3 | 562.5 |
MPPG
S
-MPPG
pre
| 459.6 | 293.0 | 387.6 | 358.2 |