不同医保类型大病保险对3种重大疾病医疗费用保障水平研究

[目的]分析不同医保类型大病保险对肿瘤、脑卒中、肾透析3种重大疾病的保障水平,为评价大病保险具体实施效果和优化大病保险政策提供依据。[方法]收集内蒙古某三甲医院2018年1月1日至12月31日不同医保类型中有关肿瘤、脑卒中、肾透析3种重大疾病患者的医疗费用数据和基本医疗保险报销数据,进行统计分析。[结果]共纳入8264例患者,城乡居民与城镇职工患者分别占58. 8%和41. 2%。其中肿瘤患者例次最高,占61. 5%。住院次数2～5次的患者2144例,大于5次者725例。城镇职工肿瘤、脑卒中、肾透析患者人均医保统筹支付费用分别为25390. 04元,18121. 26元,50742. 40元,均高于城乡居民,差异均有统计学意义(P 0. 05);不同医保类型对肿瘤、脑卒中患者医保大病保险支付费用差异有统计学意义(P 0. 001)。[结论]患者医疗总费用越高,大病保险支付金额越大。不同医保类型对肿瘤,脑卒中,肾透析患者大病保险支付费用有显著差异;城乡居民医保自付比例高于城镇职工医保。     

广州城镇职工医保住院费用支付对医院效益的影响评价

目的评价广州市城镇职工医保住院费用支付对医院效益的影响。方法以广州市15家三甲综合医院为研究对象,基于2002年度实施城镇职工医保以来各主要时段的医保住院费用结算数据,分析医院医保支付标准的影响因素、医保费用支付效果、医保费用超支情况、参保人自费率和自付率变化情况。结果医院医保支付标准主要受该医院住院医疗费用水平、医院规模与医疗服务量的影响,其调整机制由医保部门决定;医院的医保支付效果受支付标准调整影响较大;这15家医院医保费用超支较严重,在2011年及2012年,部分医院的结算单元出现严重超支,个别结算单元超支费用已超过400万元,直接影响其经济效益,而参保人的自费率、自付率有所下降,医院维护了其社会效益。结论医院效益受医保费用支付效果的影响较大,应加快建立健全的支付标准调整机制,完善支付制度;医院可采取医保精益管理等措施提升医保服务效能。     

居民卫生筹资与医疗费用负担实证分析：以上海为例

降低居民医疗负担是本轮医改的重要目标,了解和分析居民医疗负担是采取针对性措施推进相关改革的基础。本文从宏观层面分析了上海市居民在卫生筹资中的负担,从微观层面分析了其在医疗费用中的自付比例,并分析了不同人群医疗费用负担分布情况。发现上海市居民个人现金卫生支出占卫生总费用比例处于较低水平,医疗费用中医保报销比例较高;但医疗费用中,医保报销范围外自付费用高,且医疗费用负担在不同年龄组、不同医保类型、城乡人群中分布不均衡,造成医疗费用负担重的情况仍然存在。建议长期监测居民医疗费用负担情况,对重点人群“靶向”减负,加大自付费用控制力度等。     

不同医保类型慢性病住院患者直接医疗费用负担及影响因素分析

目的分析不同医保类型慢性病住院患者直接医疗费用负担及影响因素,为有效降低慢性病患者疾病经济负担提供依据。方法收集某医院2015—2016年收治的糖尿病、肿瘤、脑卒中和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(慢阻肺)住院治疗患者的医保类型、医疗费用、基本医疗保险报销数据与病案首页基本信息,比较不同医保类型患者直接医疗费用负担情况及影响因素。结果共纳入20 949例患者,其中男性10 558例,占50.40%,女性10 391例,占49.60%;平均(57.08±13.85)岁;城镇职工医保、城镇居民医保和新型农村合作医疗(新农合)患者分别占43.46%、11.02%和45.52%。不同医保类型慢性病住院患者直接医疗费用、不可补偿费用及比例、自付费用及比例比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);在各项费用中,药品费在各医保类型患者中均为最高。糖尿病、肿瘤和慢阻肺3种慢性病患者中,新农合的直接医疗费用均为最低,不可补偿费用及比例、自付费用及比例均为最高;脑卒中患者中,城镇职工医保的直接医疗费用最低,但不可补偿费用及比例、自付费用及比例均为新农合最高。年龄、性别、住院时间和医保类型等因素与患者直接医疗费用相关(P0.05)。结论不同医保类型糖尿病、肿瘤、慢阻肺住院患者直接医疗费用差异显著。年龄和住院时间均为4种慢性病住院患者直接医疗费用负担的主要影响因素。     

不同医保类型老年人脑血管病住院患者自付费用研究

目的 分析不同医保类型老年人脑血管病的保障水平,为降低患者经济负担和优化医保支付方式提供依据。方法 收集河南省2018年3月1日—2018年6月30日主要诊断为脑血管病患者共35 711例,运用描述统计、独立样本t检验、单因素方差分析方法进行统计分析。结果 住院患者总体自付比例为18.37%,整体效果较好,但不同医保类型自付比例差距大;不同医保类型自付费用构成中药费占比最高（39.5%）,其次为诊断费（29.46%）;城乡居民医保颅内出血、脑梗死和其他脑血管病自付比例分别为20.2%、20.36%、21.3%,均高于城镇职工,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.001）;两种医保自付比例在不同住院费用分组间的差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.001）,当住院费用大于1.5万元时,城镇职工医保自付比例随住院费用的增高而增高,城乡居民医保自付比例随住院费用费用升高而降低。结论 政府可以通过提高医保统筹层次,优化医保费用结构,构建多元化医保监管体系,健全城乡居民医保保障体系等措施控制患者自付费用,优化医保支付方式。     

医疗保险费用分摊形式探讨

深圳市医疗保险实行“定额内免费，超定额少量自付，自付总额适当控制”的费用分摊形式，即投保人依不同年龄段，按本单位上年平均工资总额的下列比例确定：３０岁以下为６％，３１—３９岁为７％，４０—４９岁为８％，５０岁以上为１０％。投保人在以上所列定额内的医疗费用由医疗保险机构从保险基金中支付；超过定额的费用，投保人每次就医时，个人要自付１０％．其余９０％由医疗保险局偿付给约定医疗单位。当自付的医疗费用累计超过本单位职工上年平均工资总额的８％时，投保人不再自付医疗费用，该年内的其余医疗费用由医疗保险局支付…     

发达国家卫生自付制研究

医疗卫生政策的制定是为使公民在金融风险中仍能得到确实的卫生保障。目前许多国家卫生费用的持续上涨正是由于自付制(OOP)措施的制定。该研究通过分析比较2010年七个发达国家日常统计数据来衡量和比较个人卫生自付费用的负担状况。选择分析研究的国家中,人群收入很大一部分花费在卫生费用中。该研究还指出,除了法国,以及斯洛文尼亚程度较轻外,其他五个国家有健康问题的公民都面临相当大的医疗支出压力。在美国、波兰、俄罗斯和以色列大约四分之一的亚健康居民也将收入中很大一部分花费在卫生自付上。该研究还发现人群面临高额自付费用的程度具有跨越国家和种族的相关性,以及疾病人群和健康人群在自付费用支付程度上的非一致性。如果卫生自付费用的政策制定不合理,其负面影响会持续发酵并破坏医疗卫生体系建立的核心目标。应规范该政策法规,使公民老有所养老有所依,在卫生服务资源面前得到公正平等的机会。     

云南省某三甲医院心内科医保支付比较分析

目的对云南省某三甲医院心内科现行的总额预付和DRGs-PPS两种医保支付方式进行数据分析,比较运行效果,为医保支付方式的改革完善提供参考。方法以该科室2018年数据为基础,利用SPSS 20.0进行描述性分析和相关性分析。结果DRGs-PPS能较好控制住院天数和住院总费用,平稳地控制出院人数,较好地提高医疗服务质量,医疗总费用与耗材费的相关度较高,省医保患者的平均自付费用较高。结论在总额预付制基础上实行以DRGs-PPS为主的复合医保支付方式,未来云南省DRGs-PPS支付应加强对自付费用和耗材费用的控制,DRGs-PPS操作较为复杂,医疗保险机构应加强培训与监督管理。     

DRG收付费一体化改革影响机制分析——以福建省泉州市和三明市为例

DRG收付费一体化改革仍是深化医保支付方式改革的重点内容,但是尚处地方试点探索阶段,其影响机制有待探讨。本研究基于博弈论,从患者、医保部门、医疗机构三个利益相关者出发,以福建泉州市和三明市改革模式为例进行运行模式分析。研究发现,患者侧的收费标准差异是影响改革结果的重要内容,收费标准“一刀切”容易加剧患者自付负担;在合理的预算控制和支付标准下有助于缓解医保基金支出负担;改革能够激励医疗机构节约医疗成本,仍需防范不合理医疗行为。建议患者侧仍依据实际发生医疗费用进行比例结算,以病组支付标准作为自付上限;合理制定年度预算,协同医疗服务价格动态调整机制和药品耗材集中采购等,推动支付标准的合理确定;加强监管机制,防范病组高套。     

大病医疗保障制度的国际经验及启示

为缓解重大疾病带来的沉重负担,国际上绝大多数发达国家都建立了不同模式的大病医疗保障制度,主要有商业医疗保险主导,国家医疗保险主导,社会医疗保险主导三种基本模式。考虑国际上典型国家的大病保障均以本国医疗保障制度为基础,本研究通过介绍三种模式下典型国家医疗保障体系的历史背景、制度框架等内容,分析其对重大疾病的保障模式与特点,总结各国在降低患者自付费用、控制医保付费水平、提高医疗服务质量和效率的相关经验,进而建议我国在制定大病保障政策时,注意采用综合控费措施,降低患者自付费用;转变医保支付方式,控制医保付费水平;加强运行监管,提高医疗质量和效率。     

How health insurance design affects access to care and costs, by income, in eleven countries

This 2010 survey examines the insurance-related experiences of adults in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The countries all have different systems of coverage, ranging from public systems to hybrid systems of public and private insurance, and with varying levels of cost sharing. Overall, the study found significant differences in access, cost burdens, and problems with health insurance that are associated with insurance design. US adults were the most likely to incur high medical expenses, even when insured, and to spend time on insurance paperwork and disputes or to have payments denied. Germans reported spending time on paperwork at rates similar to US rates but were well protected against out-of-pocket spending. Swiss out-of-pocket spending was high, yet few Swiss had access concerns or problems paying bills. For US adults, comprehensive health reforms could lead to improvements in many of these areas, including reducing differences by income observed in the study.     

Does the financial protection of health insurance vary across providers? Vietnam’s experience

Using household panel data from Vietnam, this paper compares out-of-pocket health expenditures on outpatient care at a health facility between insured and uninsured patients as well as across various providers. In the random effects model, the estimated coefficient of the insurance status variable suggests that insurance reduces out-of-pocket spending by 24% for those with the compulsory and voluntary coverage and by about 15% for those with the health insurance for the poor coverage. However, the modest financial protection of the compulsory and voluntary schemes disappears once we control for time-invariant unobserved individual effects using the fixed effects model. Additional analysis of the interaction terms involving the type of insurance and health facility suggests that the overall insignificant reduction in out-of-pocket expenditures as a result of the insurance schemes masks wide variations in the reduction in out-of-pocket sending across various providers. Insurance reduces out-of-pocket expenditures more for those enrollees using district and higher level public health facilities than those using commune health centers. Compared to the uninsured patients using district hospitals, compulsory and voluntary insurance schemes reduce out-of-pocket expenditures by 40 and 32%, respectively. However, for contacts at the commune health centers, both the compulsory health scheme and the voluntary health insurance scheme schemes have little influence on out-of-pocket spending while the health insurance scheme for the poor reduces out-of-pocket spending by about 15%.     

Basic patterns in national health expenditure

Analysed in this paper are national health accounts estimates for 191 WHO Member States for 1997, using simple comparisons and linear regressions to describe spending on health and how it is financed. The data cover all sources - out-of-pocket spending, social insurance contributions, financing from government general revenues and voluntary and employment-related private insurance - classified according to their completeness and reliability. Total health spending rises from around 2-3% of gross domestic product (GDP) at low incomes (< 1000 US dollars per capita) to typically 8-9% at high incomes (> 7000 US dollars). Surprisingly, there is as much relative variation in the share for poor countries as for rich ones, and even more relative variation in amounts in US dollars. Poor countries and poor people that most need protection from financial catastrophe are the least protected by any form of prepayment or risk-sharing. At low incomes, out-of-pocket spending is high on average and varies from 20-80% of the total; at high incomes that share drops sharply and the variation narrows. Absolute out-of-pocket expenditure nonetheless increases with income. Public financing increases faster, and as a share of GDP, and converges at high incomes. Health takes an increasing share of total public expenditure as income rises, from 5-6% to around 10%. This is arguably the opposite of the relation between total health needs and need for public spending, for any given combination of services. Within public spending, there is no convergence in the type of finance - general revenue versus social insurance. Private insurance is usually insignificant except in some rich countries.     

Individual insurance benefits to be available under health reform would have cut out-of-pocket spending in 2001-08

Under the Affordable Care Act, individual health insurance will probably become more generous and more like employment-related insurance. Currently, individual insurance typically has less generous benefits than employment-related insurance. This study compared out-of-pocket spending on health care between individual and employment-related insurance, controlling for numerous characteristics such as health status. Then it simulated the impact of full implementation of provisions of the Affordable Care Act on adults who currently have individual insurance, including important subgroups-adults with chronic conditions, the near-elderly (ages 55-64), and low-income populations. If adults who had individual insurance during 2001-08 had instead had benefits similar to those under the Affordable Care Act, their average annual out-of-pocket spending on medical care and drugs might have been $280 less. The near-elderly and people with low incomes might have saved $589 and $535, respectively. An important improvement would have been the reduced probability of incurring very high out-of-pocket spending. The likelihood of having out-of-pocket expenditures on care exceeding $6,000 would have been reduced for all adults with individual insurance, and the likelihood of having expenditures exceeding $4,000 would have been reduced for many.     

Inequities in access to medical care in five countries: findings from the 2001 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey

OBJECTIVE: To examine across five countries inequities in access to health care and quality of care experiences associated with income, and to determine whether these inequities persist after controlling for the effect of insurance coverage, minority and immigration status, health and other important co-factors. DESIGN: Multivariate analysis of a cross-sectional 2001 random survey of 1400 adults in five countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access difficulties and waiting times, cost-related access problems, and ratings of physicians and quality of care. RESULTS: The study finds wide and significant disparities in access and care experience between US adults with above and below-average incomes that persist after controlling for insurance coverage, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and other important factors. In contrast, differences in UK by income were rare. There were also few significant access differences by income in Australia; yet, compared to UK, Australians were more likely to report out of pocket costs. New Zealand and Canada results fell in the mid-range of the five nations, with income gaps most pronounced on services less well covered by national systems. In the four countries with universal coverage, adults with above-average income were more likely to have private supplemental insurance. Having private insurance in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand protects adults from cost-related access problems. In contrast, in UK having supplemental coverage makes little significant difference for access measures. Being uninsured in US has significant negative consequences for access and quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: For policy leaders, the five-nation survey demonstrates that some health systems are better able to minimize among low income adults financial barriers to access and quality care. However, the reliance on private coverage to supplement public coverage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand can result in access inequities even within health systems that provide basic health coverage for all. If private insurance can circumvent queues or waiting times, low income adults may also be at higher risks for non-financial barriers since they are less likely to have supplemental coverage. Furthermore, greater inequality in care experiences by income is associated with more divided public views of the need for system reform. This finding was particularly striking in Canada where an increased incidence of disparities by income in 2001 compared to a 1998 survey was associated with diverging views in 2001.     

Lack of access due to costs remains a problem for some in Massachusetts despite the state's health reforms

Did the Massachusetts health reforms, which provided near-universal insurance coverage, also address problems of unmet need resulting from the cost of care and of inadequate preventive care for diverse patient groups? We found that nearly a quarter of adults who were in fair or poor health reported being unable to see a doctor because of cost during the implementation of the reforms. We also found that state residents earning less than $25,000 per year were much less likely than higher earners to receive screening for cardiovascular disease and cancer. The state needs to implement new strategies to build on the promise of universal coverage and address specific needs of vulnerable populations, such as limiting out-of-pocket spending for this group. Also, more data are needed on the social determinants of health to identify specific barriers related to cost and access for vulnerable groups that general insurance reforms may not address.     

Employer-sponsored health insurance for early retirees: impacts on retirement,health, and health care

The proportion of large employers offering retiree health insurance in the US has declined by half in the past 20 years. This paper examines the potential implications of this change by estimating the effects of a retiree health insurance (RHI) offer on a comprehensive set of labor, health and health care use outcomes in the near-elderly population. An RHI offer increases the probability of early retirement by 37% for both men and women. While the results suggest that an RHI offer has little, if any, effect on health, there is strong evidence that RHI provides significant protection from high out-of-pocket medical costs. In the top 40% of the out-of-pocket spending distribution, those with an offer of retiree coverage spend 22% less on average. Estimates of the value of RHI of over $4,000 per year suggest that increasing opportunities for the near-elderly to purchase coverage at actuarially-fair prices through the individual market or public programs could significantly increase insurance coverage and reduce financial risk for this age group.     

Young Adults' Health Care Utilization and Expenditures Prior to the Affordable Care Act

PurposeTo examine young adults' health care utilization and expenditures prior to the Affordable Care Act.MethodsWe used 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to (1) compare young adults' health care utilization and expenditures of a full-spectrum of health services to children and adolescents and (2) identify disparities in young adults' utilization and expenditures, based on access (insurance and usual source of care) and other sociodemographic factors, including race/ethnicity and income.ResultsYoung adults had (1) significantly lower rates of overall utilization (72%) than other age groups (83%–88%, p < .001), (2) the lowest rate of office-based utilization (55% vs. 67%–77%, p < .001) and (3) higher rate of emergency room visits compared with adolescents (15% vs. 12%, p < .01). Uninsured young adults had high out-of-pocket expenses. Compared with the young adults with private insurance, the uninsured spent less than half on health care ($1,040 vs. $2,150/person, p < .001) but essentially the same out-of-pocket expenses ($403 vs. $380/person, p = .57). Among young adults, we identified significant disparities in utilization and expenditures based on the presence/absence of a usual source of care, race/ethnicity, home language, and sex.ConclusionsYoung adults may not be utilizing the health care system optimally by having low rates of office-based visits and high rates of emergency room visits. The Affordable Care Act provision of insurance for those previously uninsured or under-insured will likely increase their utilization and expenditures and lower their out-of-pocket expenses. Further effort is needed to address noninsurance barriers and ensure equal access to health services.     

Trends in out-of-pocket spending by insured American workers, 1990-1997

This paper examines trends in out-of-pocket spending for insured workers from 1990 to 1997. Data are from the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey collects detailed quarterly data on all consumer spending from logs kept each year by more than 10,000 households with job-based health insurance. During the study period, total out-of-pocket spending in constant dollars remained unchanged. Spending for medical expenses, drugs, and supplies declined by 23 percent, but this decline was offset by rising employee contributions for health insurance premiums. The shift to managed care, whose benefit structure requires less cost sharing, may have played a role in reducing out-of-pocket spending.     

Measuring financial protection in health in the United States

One rationale for health insurance coverage is to provide financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures. This article defines a lack of financial protection as household spending on health care when: (1) out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditures exceed 10% of family income; (2) out-of-pocket expenditures exceed an absolute level of 2000 US dollars per family member on an annual basis; and (3) combined out-of-pocket and prepaid health expenditures exceed 40% of family income. The article explores how the likelihood of households in the United States surpassing these thresholds varies by income level, extent of insurance coverage, and the number of chronic conditions. The results show clearly that there is a lack of financial protection for health services for a wide segment of the US population-particularly so for poor families and those with multiple chronic conditions. The results are placed in an international context. Similar studies in other countries would allow for more in-depth comparisons of financial protection than are currently possible.