Table 2.
NCMSa impact on incidence of catastrophic expenditure for TB care, China, 2012
| Indicators | Study locations | All | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanzhong | Yichang | Zhenjiang | ||
| Average capacity to pay (US$) (A1) | 2436.6 (1781.0)b | 3242.8 (2245.4) | 5143.7 (3219.3) | 3042.9 (2268.5) |
| Average food expenditure (US$) (A2) | 958.0 (444.8) | 1157.5 (501.9) | 1906.7 (708.4) | 1139.4 (530.1) |
| Ratios of A2 versus A1 | 1 : 2.54 | 1 : 2.80 | 1 : 2.70 | 1 : 2.67 |
| Total expenditure on TB care (US$c) | 1696.6 (1201.1) | 1257.7 (911.4) | 2226.9 (904.4) | 1591.8 (1074.4) |
| OOPd payments for TB care (US$) | 1094.1 (900.5) | 898.9 (736.5) | 1592.8 (649.5) | 1077.0 (817.4) |
| OOP payments share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 64.5 | 71.5 | 71.5 | 67.7 |
| Reimbursement from health insurance system (US$) | 589.2 | 304.6 | 619.0 | 485.9 |
| NCMS share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 34.7 | 24.2 | 27.8 | 30.5 |
| Subsidies from government and other sources (US$) | 13.4 | 54.25 | 15.1 | 28.9 |
| Subsidy share of total expenditure on TB care (%) | 0.8 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 1.8 |
| Households with catastrophic expenditure (%) | ||||
| Before reimbursement (C B ) | 63.5 | 50.8 | 59.0 | 58.2 |
| After reimbursement (C A ) | 51.1 | 39.2 | 51.3 | 46.7 |
| After reimbursement and subsidies (C S ) | 50.6 | 39.2 | 48.7 | 46.1 |
| Difference (%) | ||||
| C B -C A | 12.4 | 11.6 | 7.7 | 11.5 |
| C A -C S | 0.6 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.6 |
| C B -C A -C S | 13.0 | 11.6 | 10.3 | 12.1 |
aNCMS means New Cooperative Medical Scheme, the same below;
bMean (SD)
cA currency exchange rate of Chinese RMB 628 Yuan to US$1 00 Yuan (at the end of 2012);
dOOP : out-of-pocket