Changes in health care utilization and financial protection after integration of the rural and urban social health insurance schemes in Beijing, China

Table 3 Regression results for annual inpatient care utilization and expenditure

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Part I^a	Part II^b	Part I^a	Part II^b	Part I^a	Part II^b
Rural	0.70***	1.33	0.73**	1.26
PCHC (poorest as the reference)
Q2	1.05	1.34**	1.04	1.39**	0.78	1.58*
Q3	1.30	1.57***	1.38*	1.61***	1.02	1.30
Q4	1.77***	1.60***	1.90***	1.56**	1.37	1.10
Q5 (richest)	2.44***	3.06***	2.60***	2.88***	1.90***	1.72**
Hukou#Year
Urban-2018	0.95	1.34
Rural-2018	1.04	1.16
Year#PCHC
2018-Q1 (poorest)			1.10	1.20
2018-Q2			1.12	1.11
2018-Q3			0.98	1.12
2018-Q4			0.95	1.25*
2018-Q5 (richest)			0.96	1.35
Hukou#PCHC
Rural-Q1 (poorest)					0.46***	0.85
Rural-Q2					0.73	0.74
Rural-Q3					0.76	1.27
Rural-Q4					0.78	1.56**
Rural-Q5 (richest)					0.77**	2.06**
Hukou#Year#PCHC
Urban-2018-Q1 (poorest)					0.99	1.00
Urban-2018-Q2					1.01	0.94
Urban-2018-Q3					0.90	1.66*
Urban-2018-Q4					0.79	1.72
Urban-2018-Q5 (richest)					1.07	1.34
Rural-2018-Q1 (poorest)					1.21	1.34
Rural-2018-Q2					1.18	1.22
Rural-2018-Q3					1.01	0.92
Rural-2018-Q4					1.01	1.07
Rural-2018-Q5 (richest)					0.91	1.35
Observations	15,489	868	15,489	868	15,489	868

All models included individual and household level covariates and district fixed effect. Standard errors adjusted for clustering at district level. All expenditure results were converted to comparable expenditure in 2018 with Beijing’s CPI. ***, **, and * indicated the significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively
PCHC Per capita annual household consumption
^a For Part I, odds ratio was reported
^b For Part II, \(\exp(\widehat\beta)\) was reported

ISSN: 1472-6963