Can Basic Medical Insurance Reduce Elderly Family Income Inequality in China?

In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.

A content analysis of 2 years of Psychological Science articles reveals inconsistencies in how researchers make inferences about indirect effects when conducting a statistical mediation analysis. In this study, we examined the frequency with which popularly used tests disagree, whether the method an investigator uses makes a difference in the conclusion he or she will reach, and whether there is a most trustworthy test that can be recommended to balance practical and performance considerations. We found that tests agree much more frequently than they disagree, but disagreements are more common when an indirect effect exists than when it does not. We recommend the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval as the most trustworthy test if power is of utmost concern, although it can be slightly liberal in some circumstances. Investigators concerned about Type I errors should choose the Monte Carlo confidence interval or the distribution-of-the-product approach, which rarely disagree. The percentile bootstrap confidence interval is a good compromise test.

Background The inequity of healthcare utilization in rural China is serious, and the urban-rural segmentation of the medical insurance system intensifies this problem. To guarantee that the rural population enjoys the same medical insurance benefits, China began to establish Urban and Rural Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URRBMI) nationwide in 2016. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to compare the healthcare utilization inequity between URRBMI and New Cooperative Medical Schemes (NCMS) and to analyze whether the inequity is reduced under URRBMI in rural China. Methods Using the data from a national representative survey, the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), which was conducted in 2015, a binary logistic regression model was applied to analyze the influence of income on healthcare utilization, and the decomposition of the concentration index was adopted to compare the Horizontal inequity index (HI index) of healthcare utilization among the individuals insured by URRBMI and NCMS. Results There is no statistically significant difference in healthcare utilization between URRBMI and NCMS, but in outpatient utilization, there are significant differences among different income groups in NCMS; high-income groups utilize more outpatient care. The Horizontal inequity indexes (HI indexes) in outpatient utilization for individuals insured by URRBMI and NCMS are 0.024 and 0.012, respectively, indicating a pro-rich inequity. Meanwhile, the HI indexes in inpatient utilization under the two groups are − 0.043 and − 0.028, respectively, meaning a pro-poor inequity. For both the outpatient and inpatient care, the inequity degree of URRBMI is larger than that of NCMS. Conclusions This paper shows that inequity still exists in rural areas after the integration of urban-rural medical insurance schemes, and there is still a certain gap between the actual and the expected goal of URRBMI. Specifically, compared to NCMS, the pro-rich inequity in outpatient care and the pro-poor inequity in inpatient care are more serious in URRBMI. More chronic diseases should be covered and moral hazard should be avoided in URRBMI. For the vulnerable groups, special policies such as reducing the deductible and covering these groups with catastrophic medical insurance could be considered.