Skip to main content

Table 4 Disparities in Healthcare Access and Utilization

From: Health insurance of rural/township schoolchildren in Pinggu, Beijing: coverage rate, determinants, disparities, and sustainability

 

Commercial

Low-Premium

Uninsured

p-value

Difficulty in access

n = 98

n = 134

n = 198

<0.001

   No

51.0%(50)

43.3%(58)

24.2%(48)

 

   Neutral

40.8%(40)

41.8%(56)

58.6%(116)

 

   Yes

8.2%(8)

14.9%(20)

17.2%(34)

 

Care Affordability

n = 102

n = 135

n = 202

0.077

   Affordable

61.8%(63)

57.8%(78)

52.0%(105)

 

   Neutral

24.5%(25)

18.5%(25)

29.7%(60)

 

   Unaffordable

13.7%(14)

23.7%(32)

18.3%(37)

 

Delay in seeking care 1

n = 78

n = 106

n = 161

0.1052

   Yes

17.9%(14)

13.2%(14)

23.6%(38)

 

Foregone care

n = 96

n = 133

n = 192

0.009

   Yes

11.5%(11)

14.3%(19)

24.5%(47)

 

Outpatient Visits

n = 101

n = 140

n = 205

0.796

   None

18.8%19)

24.3%(34)

19.5%(40)

 

   1–2

59.4%(60)

59.3%(83)

57.6%(118)

 

   3–5

16.8%(17)

12.1%(17)

17.1%(35)

 

   >5

5.0%(5)

4.3%(5)

5.9%(12)

 

Satisfaction with healthcare

n = 99

n = 139

n = 198

0.0673

   Satisfied

21.2%(21)

25.2%(35)

12.2%(24)

 

   Somewhat satisfied

40.4%(40)

41.0%(57)

43.4%(86)

 

   Neutral

17.2%(17)

15.8%(22)

23.7%(47)

 

   Unsatisfied

21.2%(21)

18.0%(25)

20.7%(41)

 
  1. 1. Only those reported illness were included
  2. 2. Difference between the low-premium and uninsured was more pronounced with χ2 = 3.77, df = 1, p-value = 0.05
  3. 3. Comparison of insured (commercial and coop combined) and uninsured resulted in χ2 = 10.915, df = 3, p-value = 0.012