Demand for Private Health Insurance in Chinese Urban Areas by Ying Et Al - Article Example

Article Review Client Inserts His/her Name Client Inserts Grade Course Client Inserts Tutor’s Name 06/09/2012 A Review Research Paper Previously Done By Ying Et Al (2007): Demand for Private Health Insurance in Chinese Urban Areas The issue of public health, over a couple of recent decades, has been one of the great concerns of health sectors of different countries. While good health status of a society remains the main goal, the major setback all along has been financial incapacity that cuts across various governments and the public in general (Smith & Witter 2004). While governments lack adequate funds to develop reliable health services infrastructure, the public fails to acquire proper health service due to low income versus the high medical care costs (Buchmueller et al 2008). The end result is poor delivery of proper health care to the public which is what every government tries to fight anyway. The worst scenario is when the public is not insured against unpredictable health adversities among others, and this poses great danger on individual members of the public. An ideal aspect of this is the imbalance or rather inequity in healthcare of the societies of different countries (Gwatkin et al 2004; Buchmueller et al 2008). In economics of health, governments often become prime objects of blame. The worst is when a government is run by incompetent leaders, and is, simultaneously, undergoing a period of economic crisis. The limited available finances should therefore be shared equitably among different members of the public (Gwatkin, Bhuiya & Victora 2004). While the key interest is to address the problems inherent in the healthcare economics sphere, this paper reviews the work previously done by Ying, Hu, Ren, Chen, Xu and Huang (2007) in which they focus on the nature of health insurance in urban areas of China. While China remains the world’s most populous country and in rapid development stages, Ying et al (2007) are interested in the difference in comparing the demand and affordability of rural and urban areas of China. The larger picture, of course, is the percentage of citizens who are willing to insure their lives for various medical services as a means by which the society affords high costs of medical care. While the analysis of China acts as the centre of reference, similarity of other countries in the same context is also brought to the wider picture of world’s heath care financial cover and responsibility. For instance, while Ying et al (2007) reveal a reversing trend in health care utilization by the public despite a rise in economic development in China, elsewhere, for example Malaysia, which is almost in same category in terms of development, a rising health care utilization trend (Yu, Whynes & Sach 2008) is evident. Yet, most other economically weak countries record much lower indices (McIntyre 2007) in this context. The work of Ying et al (2007) seeks to locate individuals’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) which is one of the mostly used contingency valuation methods (CVM) for health insurance costs in two Chinese provinces, Sichuan and Shandong, results of which would importantly reflect on similar indices in China as a country. The use of household analysis or rather one-on-one questionnaires, as employed here is not at all questionable if the search for relevant and reliable information is the end goal. In a similar quest with other previous researches conducted in China, the results are fundamental although reliability and authenticity of the data collected remains the most important aspects of the entire study. The WTP method is valued at different end usage. The major one is to develop an explanation on the previously observed low and reducing health care utilization. However, Ying et al (2007) work may be biased in terms of coverage; they only collected data in the eastern regions of China. Issues of public health are critical and thus the data dealt with in related research should cover more areas especially for a country like China, and consider other factors such as distribution of wealth. As reiterated above, in terms of methodology employed in the research, the work of Ying et al can be something to go by. The three types of health insurance products auctioned out to various individuals of target are major catastrophic disease insurance (MCDI), inpatient expenses insurance (IEI) and outpatient expenses insurance (OEI) (Ying et al 2007). This is enough a coverage of the vital regimes when medical care is needed at individual level and for the bare purpose of the researcher. There are other key roles, however, that a comprehensive medical insurance research should include. Preker, Harding and Travis (2000) suggest that measuring the level of awareness, to the public, of the existence, importance and cognitive appreciation of such medical facilities such as medical insurance cover particularly for the marginalized public is vitally important. Ignorance of the public and the underpinning of reforms on medical utility facilities policies can as a result be addressed (Suvanto & Vartiainen 2007). In fact, due to ignorance, it is possible that people, who are financially capable, do not even realize existence of health care affordability in terms of adopting health insurance cover (Jacobs & Goddard 2002). According to findings by Ying et al (2007), a higher percentage of the public (48.5%) are willing to pay for IEI while compared to 43.0% and 24.5% for MCDI and OEI respectively. From all dimensions, these results indicate a likelihood of less than 50% willingness to pay for any health insurance as a precaution. Again, the public is more worried about the current health care than the predicted or rather emergency cases as well as post treatment health care. While financial capability in terms of economics of scale at household level may be underpinned as the main reason for low interest in taking such insurances (Jacobs & Goddard 2002), the findings of Ying et al (2007) may be termed as authentic (what with a combination of self-employed/private sector of 56% and 27% of totally unemployed individuals) in terms of previous findings and the nature of income statistics in general in China. According to Ying et al (2007), if the premiums are increased across all health care insurance options available, the public would reduce its interest in taking health care insurance cover. This is not a new phenomenon; Buchmueller et al (2008) fundamentally argue that an increase in health care costs does not rhyme with equitable increase in income and therefore the public, on average, chooses to forgo such important undertakings like health care insurance. The situation becomes worse when responsible governments fail to recognize this problem loophole and lack the capacity to increase funding on the health care sector (Mossialos et al 2002), a situation that makes the public view such options as luxurious (Yu et al 2008). Ying et al (2007), in their analysis, identify premium amount, province or region, gender, age, employment status, and income as the key determinants of demands for demands for private health care insurance of any form. Fundamentally, the level of income is the major one. This true because as Ying et al (2007) realize, urban dwellers in China actively appreciate the role of at least one form of health care insurance cover – more than 40% of the respondents are positive – than they do rural dwellers. It is common that urban dwellers are employed and gather substantial incomes that enable them explore various options like the ones presented in this context, they are educated and close to the media (Ying et al 2007; Yu et al 2008). The failure to critically fathom and focus on the level of awareness of the necessity of private health care insurance cover was a fundamental error for Ying et al. McIntyre (2007) displays the health promotion strategy as an important driving force for individuals to know the benefits of taking timely health care insurance cover. This argument notwithstanding, it is clear that the public in China, for whatever reasons, forfeits proper strategies in combating health adversities in advance. This statement have been seconded be other researchers and authors including Preker et al (2000), Smith and Witter (2004), McIntyre (2007) and Yu et al (2008). Similarly, the failure of various governments to reform health care economics and provide funding assistance to the public where need is due is evident (McIntyre 2007; Ying et al 2007; Yu et al 2008). While Ying et al (2007) recommend that MCDI and IEI should be prioritized by the private health care insurance sector (on the right track anyway), McIntyre (2007) finds it illogical to expect the public to comply without reasonable funding (to subsidize health care costs) from responsible governments relative to the rising cost of living against stagnating income levels. The public awareness index is another factor of consideration. If proper health promotion programs are well crafted, a larger portion of the public may be expected to respond positively (McIntyre 2007) to the available health care insurance options available in various countries. In fact, while we exert pressure on various governments in this context, it is as well important to note the significance of the public’s ignorance on matters of health. List of References Buchmueller, T.C., Fiebig, D., Jones, G. et al. 2008. Advantageous selection in private health insurance: The case of Australia. CHERE Working Paper 2008/2.pp1-16. Gwatkin, D.R., Bhuiya, A. and Victora, C.G. 2004. Making health systems more equitable. The Lancet, 364, pp1273–80. Jacobs, R. and Goddard, M. 2002. Trade-offs in Social Health Insurance Systems. International Journal of Social Economics, 29: 11. Pp861-75. McIntyre, D. 2007. Learning from experience: health care financing in low- and middle-income Countries. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research. Pp1-50. Mossialos, E., Dixon, A., Figueras, J. et al. (Eds.). 2002. Funding Health Care: options for Europe. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Pp161-83. Preker, A.S., Harding, A. and Travis, P. 2000. ‘‘Make or Buy’’ Decisions in the Production of Health Care Goods and Services: New Insights from Institutional Economics and Organizational Theory. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78: 6, pp780-90. Smith, P.C. and Witter, S.N. 2004. Risk Pooling in Health Care Financing: The Implications for Health System Performance, a HNP Discussion Paper. USA: The World Bank. Pp1-33. Suvanto, A. and Vartiainen, H. (Eds.). 2007. Finance and Incentives of the Health Care Systems: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium of the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation. Helsinki: VATT Publications. Pp2-200. Ying, X., Hu, T., Ren, J. et al. 2007. Demand for Private Health Insurance in Chinese Urban Areas. Health Econ, 16, pp1041–50. Yu, C.P., Whynes, D.K. and Sach, T.H. 2008. Equity in health care financing: The case of Malaysia. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7: 15, pp1-14. Read More