MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250082331 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-53346/v2

Measurement and determinants of catastrophic health expenditure among the elderly households in China using longitudinal data from the CHARLS

2020· preprint· en· W4250082331 on OpenAlexafffund
Shiai Liu, Peter C. Coyte, Mingqi Fu, Qilin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersWuhan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsLongitudinal studyLongitudinal dataChinaEnvironmental healthPanel dataGerontologyMedicineDemographic economicsEconomicsGeographyEconometricsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) among the Chinese elderly warrants attention. However, the incidence, intensity and determinants of CHE have not been fully investigated. This study explores the incidence, intensity and determinants of CHE among elderly Chinese citizens, i.e., those aged 60 years or older. Methods: Data were obtained from three waves of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS): 2011, 2013 and 2015. The cut-off points used in this study for CHE were 10% of the total expenditures and 40% of non-food expenditure. Under the guidance of Andersen’s model of health services utilization, this study used logistic regression analysis to explore the determinants of CHE. Results: The incidence of CHE defined as more than 40% of non-food expenditure rose over the study period, 2011-2015, from 20.86% (95% CI: 19.35% to 22.37%) to 31.00% (95% CI: 29.28% to 32.72%). The intensity of CHE also increased. The overshoot (O) based on non-food expenditure rose from 3.12% (95% CI: 2.71% to 3.53%) to 8.75% (95% CI: 8.14% to 9.36%), while the mean positive overshoot (MPO) rose from 14.96% (95% CI: 12.99% to 16.92%) to 28.23% (95% CI: 26.26% to 30.19%). Thus, the problem of CEH was even more serious in 2015 than in 2011. Logistic regression revealed that households were more likely to face CHE if they had a spouse as a household member, reported an inpatient event in the last year, reported an outpatient visit in the last month, were disabled, were members of a poor expenditure quartile, lived in the middle and western zones or resided in an urban area. In contrast, CEH was not significantly affected by respondents being older than 75 years or having a chronic health condition, by household size or by insurance type. Conclusions: Key policy recommendations include the gradual improvement of medical assistance and the expansion of the use of health insurance to reduce household liability for health expenditures. Trial Registration: None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.403
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.004 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207