| Title |
The effect of extension of benefit coverage for cancer patients on health care utilization across different income groups in South Korea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10754-014-9144-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sujin Kim, Soonman Kwon |
| Abstract |
To provide financial protection against catastrophic illness, the Korean government expanded the National Health Insurance (NHI) benefit coverage for cancer patients in 2005. This paper examined whether the policy improved the income-related equality in health care utilization. This study analyzed the extent to which the policy improved income-related equality in outpatient visits, inpatient days, and inpatient and outpatient care expenditure based on triple difference estimator. Using nationwide claims data of the NHI from 2002 to 2004 and from 2006 to 2010, we compared cancer patients as a treatment group with liver disease as a control group and low-income group with the highest-income group. The results showed that the extension of NHI benefits coverage led to an increase in the utilization of outpatient services across all income groups, but with a greater increase for the low-income groups, among cancer patients. Moreover, the policy led to a less decrease in the utilization of inpatient services for the low-income group while it decreased across all income groups. Our finding suggests that the extension of NHI benefits coverage improved the income-related equality in health care utilization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 27% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2015.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#105
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,248
of 238,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.