Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

The relation between health insurance and management of hypertension in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:959

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3627-3

  • Received: 13 March 2016
  • Accepted: 2 September 2016
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

We aimed to investigate the management of hypertension in Shanghai, China and to examine whether there was any difference of hypertension management among people enrolled in different health insurances.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 31,531 residents were selected in Shanghai, using a randomized, stratified, multi-stage sampling method, and were asked to provide their status of hypertension, condition of hypertension management, health insurances and other demographic information. A weighted propensity score model was used to adjust confounders and to analyze the differences on hypertension management among hypertension patients enrolled in different health insurances.

Results

In Shanghai, most hypertension patients achieved good management of hypertension. However, patients enrolled in the New Cooperative Medical Scheme or the Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance scheme were more likely to achieve publicity of precautionary knowledge about hypertension (OR = 2.36 [95 % CI :1.96,2.85] and 1.28 [95 % CI:1.12,1.45], respectively) and had their blood pressure under control (OR = 1.33 [95 % CI :1.09,1.62] and 1.22 [95 % CI:1.05,1.42], respectively) than patients enrolled in the Urban Employee Basic Health Insurance scheme.

Conclusion

The study provided a comprehensive description of hypertension in Shanghai, China. To support the management of hypertension, publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge should be improved, especially to people enrolled in the Urban Employee Basic Health Insurance scheme.

Keywords

  • Hypertension
  • Disease management
  • Health insurance

Background

Hypertension is one of the most important risk factors and the leading cause for cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide [1] and is also a growing burden to China’s public health. It was reported that the number of patients nationwide has increased from less than 100 million in 1991 to 260 million in 2012 [2]. The prevalence of hypertension among adults aged >18 year was 18.8 % according to a National Survey in 2002, and increased to approximately 25 % in recent years [3]. The greater the risk, the greater the benefit of hypertension control [4].

Effective management of hypertension is a core requirement of any health system [5] and previous studies demonstrated that the lacking in insurance coverage is a risk factor of management of hypertension [6, 7]. In China, with the reform of health insurance in recent years, almost residents already had health insurance [8]. Health insurance can improve hypertension management by increasing the number of people receiving all categories of prevention services without much cost and by lowering patients’ out-of-pocket costs of antihypertensive drugs [6]. However, in China, residents may achieve different types of health insurance based on their employment status, household registration systems and living locations [8]. In China, there are three main types of health insurance, the Urban Employee Basic Health Insurance scheme (UEBMI, launched in 1998), the New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS; launched in 2003) and the Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance scheme (URBMI; launched in 2007). The UEBMI provides coverage to the employees and retirees in the public sector. The NCMS is to improve access to health insurance for rural population. The URBMI is for urban residents without formal employment [9].

Different health insurances are separately governed by different authorities and provide different benefits packages [8]. UEBMI, URBMI and NCMS cover the expenditure of hypertension care, if patients visited the medical center and used hypertension drugs which are appointed by the government. However, until recently, few studies have examined whether there is any difference of hypertension management among people enrolled in different health insurances.

To investigate these issues, we analyzed data of 7974 residents with hypertension based on the fifth Health Service Survey of Shanghai, which was the extension of China’s National Health Service Survey (NHSS).

Methods

Data source

The data used for analysis was from the fifth Health Service Survey of Shanghai, which had been organized and completed by the Shanghai Municipal Commission Health and Family Planning in 2013 and was the extension of NHSS. The NHSS was approved by the National Commission Health and Family Planning China every fifth year since 1993 [10] Until now, the NHSS has been conducted for five times (1993, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2008 and 2013). The detailed sampling and quality assurance measures used the uniform standards throughout the nationwide scope and have been described in detail elsewhere [11] and are briefly summarized here. To achieve representation of the whole population in Shanghai, a three-stage, stratified, random sampling method was adopted. In the first stage, 100 towns/townships (sub-district) were selected randomly from all of the 17 counties/districts in Shanghai. The second stage sampled villages/communities. One thousand villages/communities were selected in the sampled towns/townships (sub-district). In the third stage, 12,000 households were identified. A face-to-face interview was conducted for each household, using a structured household questionnaire which was developed by the National Commission Health and Family Planning of China. The household questionnaire contained general information on socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the households; insurance characteristics of household members; self-reported illness and injury; outpatient and inpatient health service utilization.

Considerable quality assurance measures were implemented during the process of data collection. Survey constitutors checked the data to find out whether there were logic errors. If logic errors were found out, investigators would visit the corresponding household again to verify relevant information. Besides, survey constitutors revisited 5 % of the sampled households to check the accuracy of data recorded by interviewers. In this process, ten key questions were asked again to check the consistency of the information recorded. The consistency rates of the key questions recorded between the first and second visits was near 99 %. The Myer’s Blended index was 7.39, indicating that there was non-existence of age preference in this survey [12].

At last, we got the information of 31,531 respondents. However, we just focused on the adult and senior samples defined as those aged ≥ 18 years old (n = 28,672).

Data collection

Hypertension related information

Every resident was asked to complete a comprehensive health and lifestyle questionnaire and indicated whether they had hypertension based on the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have hypertension?” The management of hypertension on patients included measuring blood pressure within a month, publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge within 3 months, taking antihypertensive drugs every day and having blood pressure controlled. “Publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge” means regular hypertension health education. The aim of the health education is to raise awareness of three level prevention of hypertension, namely, primary prevention for health population, secondary prevention for high-risk population, and tertiary prevention for patients. The knowledges include information about improving self-care awareness, promoting a healthy lifestyle, and preventing and controlling the various risk factors of hypertension and so on [13]. The information of having blood pressure under control was collected from the answer to the question: “Is your blood pressure under controlled?”. Hypertension patients can choose one from three answer choices: “Yes”, “No” or “Not clear”. Other information of hypertension management was collected from the answer to the relevant questions.

All of the above information was self-reported.

Health insurance information

Participants were queried on their type (s) of health insurance coverage, which included UEMRI, URBMI, NCMS and other types of health insurance. The health insurance section contained several questions as following: “Do you participate in the UEBMI?”, “Do you participate in the URBMI”, “Do you participate in the NCMS”, “Do you participate in the cooperative medical insurance for urban and rural residents”, “Do you participate in any commercial insurances” and “Do you participate in any other kinds of health insurance”. Residents can participant only one of the three main health insurances (URBMI, UEBMI, NCMS). Respondents will be definded as uninsured if they did not participant any type of health insurance.

Information of outpatient health services

Every participant was questioned about the information of health condition in the past 2 weeks, including the presence or absence of diseases, whether sought outpatient health services, the expenditure of outpatient health services, the self-evaluation of the expenditure and so on.

Social-demographic information

Social-demographic characteristics considered in this study included sex, age, marital status, education attainment, residential areas and annual household income. In addition, we also considered physical activity (if respondents engaged in physical activities at least once a week in the last 6 months) and other morbidities (for example: whether respondents had been diagnosed with diabetes, musculoskeletal problems, respiratory disease or cancer).

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were summarized using mean (standard deviation, SD) for each numerical variables and counts (percentages) for categorical variables. Chi-square test was used to compare the difference of hypertension management among patients with different health insurances (measuring blood pressure within a month, publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge within 3 months, taking antihypertensive drugs every day and having blood pressure controlled). Outpatient services expenditures of hypertension patients with different health insurances were compared by using Kruskal-Wallis H test.

Different logistic regressions were used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for four outcomes: got measuring blood pressure within a month, achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge within 3 months, took antihypertensive drugs every day and had blood pressure controlled, respectively. The patients with UEBMI were used as a reference group in the calculations of the ORs for other patients with different types of health insurance.

To adjusted confounders, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used [14]. The propensity score (PS), a probability of a respondent participating corresponding health insurance, was estimated by a multiple logistic regression model. The PS model contained several variables, including age, sex, education status, physical exercise status, annual household income, smoking status, drinking status, physical exercises status, household type and body mass index (BMI). This score was used in the multivariable analyses for the outcome using the IPTW method. When using the IPTW method, a stabilized weight was used to maintain the number of respondents used in the weighted analysis as the number of original study respondents [14]. A series of univariate regressions were performed to assess the likelihood of balancing baseline covariates before and after applying the IPTW method. The confounders which were not balanced after implementation of the propensity score were also included in the outcome model for more accurate estimation [15]. Besides, when estimating the ORs of having blood pressure controlled, we added status of measuring blood pressure within a month, achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge and taking antihypertensive drugs every day into outcome model to adjust their effect on the outcome. Meanwhile, status of measuring blood pressure within a month, achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge were included into the outcome model when we estimated the ORs of taking antihypertensive drugs every day. Furthermore, several logistic regressions for outcomes with different specifications were performed as sensitivity analyses. The results of all sensitivities analyses and balance analysis of confounders were presented in the appendix files (Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Table S2).

P values reported were two-tailed and a p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Result

Health insurance sources

Of all 28,672 residents aged ≥18 years old, 27.2 % (n = 7974) had hypertension. A total of 98.9 % of these patients (n = 7883) participate in health insurances. The detail information of health insurance sources in different subgroups was shown in Table 1. Among the patients with hypertension, 53.8 % (n = 4293) were enrolled in UEBMI, 27.5 % (n = 2192) were enrolled in URBMI and 16.0 % (n = 1276) were enrolled in NCMS. 3 hypertension patients with insurance missed household type information (0.04 %) and 12 residents with hypertension missed physical exercise information (0.15 %).
Table 1

Different health insurances in residents ≥18 years with hypertension by demography

 

Number (%)

 

Alla

UEBMI

URBMI

NCMS

Othersb

 

N = 7883

N = 4293

N = 2192

N = 1276

N = 122

Sex

 Male

3855 (48.9)

2324 (54.1)

950 (43.3)

530 (41.5)

51 (41.8)

 Female

4028 (51.1)

1969 (45.9)

1242 (56.7)

746 (58.5)

71 (58.2)

Household typec

 Agricultural

1577 (20.0)

222 (5.2)

162 (7.4)

1169 (91.6)

24 (19.7)

 Non-agricultural

6304 (80.0)

4069 (94.8)

2030 (92.6)

107 (8.4)

98 (80.3)

Age

 18–29

13 (0.2)

10 (0.2)

2 (0.1)

1 (0.1)

0 (0.0)

 30–39

77 (1.0)

64 (1.5)

5 (0.2)

8 (0.6)

0 (0.0)

 40–49

450 (5.7)

303 (7.1)

89 (4.1)

48 (3.8)

10 (8.2)

 50–64

3308 (42.0)

1853 (43.2)

894 (40.8)

516 (40.4)

45 (36.9)

 ≥65

4035 (51.2)

2063 (48.1)

1202 (54.8)

703 (55.1)

67 (54.9)

Education

 Less than high school

5303 (67.3)

2265 (52.8)

1722 (78.6)

1236 (96.9)

80 (65.6)

 High school graduate

2153 (27.3)

1674 (39)

404 (18.4)

40 (3.1)

35 (28.7)

 higher than high school

427 (5.4)

354 (8.3)

66 (3.0)

0 (0.0)

7 (5.7)

Family income (year)

 ≤48,000

2716 (34.5)

865 (20.2)

912 (41.6)

901 (70.6)

38 (31.2)

 48,001 ~ 70,000

2186 (27.7)

1398 (32.6)

573 (26.1)

188 (14.7)

27 (22.1)

 70,001 ~ 100,000

1684 (21.4)

1119 (26.1)

416 (19.0)

123 (9.6)

26 (21.3)

 >100,000

1297 (16.5)

911 (21.2)

291 (13.3)

64 (5.0)

31 (25.4)

Physical exercises statusd

 more than 6 times a week

2259 (28.7)

1448 (33.8)

621 (28.4)

151 (11.9)

2259 (28.7)

 3–5 times a week

997 (12.7)

607 (14.2)

263 (12.0)

115 (9.0)

997 (12.7)

 1–2 times a week

688 (8.7)

398 (9.3)

191 (8.7)

88 (6.9)

688 (8.7)

 Less than 1 time a week

241 (3.1)

149 (3.5)

57 (2.6)

29 (2.3)

241 (3.1)

 Never

3686 (46.8)

1686 (39.3)

1055 (48.2)

891 (69.9)

3686 (46.8)

Diabetes

 Yes

1306 (16.6)

779 (18.1)

337 (15.4)

167 (13.1)

23 (18.9)

 No

6577 (83.4)

3514 (81.9)

1855 (84.6)

1109 (86.9)

99 (81.1)

Note:

UEBMI the urban employee basic health insurance scheme, URBMI the urban resident basic medical insurance, NCMS the new cooperative medical scheme

The unit of family income is China Yuan (CNY)

a all hypertension patients with any types of insurances

b Other health insurance means residents didn’t use UEBMI, URBMI or NCMS, but just use other types of health insurance;

c three hypertension patients with insurance missed household type information

d 12 hypertension patients with insurance missed physical exercises status information

Implementation of hypertension management

Among the residents with hypertension, 85.8 % (n = 6845) had their blood pressure under control. Most of residents with hypertension took antihypertensive drugs every day (n = 7216, 90.5 %) and measured their blood pressure within a month (n = 7138, 89.5 %).78.8 % of the residents with hypertension (n = 6284) achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge within 3 months.

The differences in the management of hypertension among patients with different health insurances were shown in Table 2. Patients enrolled in UEBMI had the highest proportion of having measured blood pressure measurement within a month (90.5 %), following by patients enrolled in URBMI (89.6 %) and patients enrolled in NCMS had the lowest proportion (86.7 %). The difference on the percentage of getting blood pressure measurement within a month among patients enrolled in different health insurances was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was also statistically significant difference on the proportion of achieving publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge among hypertension patients enrolled in different health insurances (74.9 % for UEBMI, 81.1 % for URBMI and 88.4 % for NCMS, p < 0.001). The percentages of patients taking antihypertensive drugs every day were similar among patients with different  health insurances (89.9 % in patients with UEBMI, 91.2 % in patients with URBMI and 91.5 % in patients with NCMS, p = 0.109). However, there was significant statistical difference on the proportion of controlled blood pressure (85.7 % in patients with UEBMI, 87.1 % in patients with URBMI and 84.1 % in patients with NCMS, p = 0.041).
Table 2

Hypertension management in patients with different insurances

 

Blood pressure measurementa

Prevention knowledgeb

Antihypertensive drugsc

Blood pressure under controld

All (n = 7883)

7064 (89.6 %)

6213 (78.8 %)

7131 (90.5 %)

6765 (85.8 %)

UEBMI (n = 4293)

3884 (90.5 %)

3216 (74.9 %)

3858 (89.9 %)

3678 (85.7 %)

URBMI (n = 2192)

1965 (89.6 %)

1778 (81.1 %)

1998 (91.2 %)

1909 (87.1 %)

NCMS (n = 1276)

1107 (86.7 %)

1128 (88.4 %)

1167 (91.5 %)

1072 (84.1 %)

Others (n = 122)

108 (88.5 %)

91 (74.6 %)

108 (88.5 %)

105 (86.1 %)

Note:

UEBMI the urban employee basic health insurance scheme, URBMI the urban resident basic medical insurance, NCMS the new cooperative medical scheme

a patients measured their blood pressure within a month;

b patients achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge;

c: patients took antihypertensive drugs every day;

d patient had their blood pressure under control

In regression analysis, of the 7883 records of hypertensive insured respondents, 18 have missing data and the missingness rate is 0.23 %. After adjusted for confounders, compared with hypertension patients with UEBMI, hypertension patients with URBMI were more likely to achieve publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge within 3 months (OR:1.28, 95 % Cl:1.12–1.45) and had their blood pressure under control (OR:1.22,95 % Cl:1.05,1.42). Meanwhile, there were similar phenomena among patients with NCMS. Patients with NCMS were also more likely to achieve publicity of precautionary knowledge about hypertension within 3 months (OR: 2.36, 95 % Cl: 1.96, 2.85) and had their blood pressure under control (OR: 1.33, 95 % Cl: 1.09, 1.62). There were no difference on the control of blood pressure between patients with NCMS and URBMI (Table 3).
Table 3

Regression Analyses of the implementation of management of hypertension patients

 

Blood pressure measurementa

Publicity of hypertension prevention knowledgeb

Antihypertensive drugsc

Blood pressure under control d

Adjusted OR (95 % CI)

p value

Adjusted OR (95 % CI)

p value

Adjusted OR (95 % CI)

p value

Adjusted OR (95 % CI)

p value

Health insurance (vs UEBMI)

 URBMI

0.99 (0.84,1.18)

0.924

1.28 (1.12,1.45)

<0.001

0.94 (0.79,1.13)

0.510

1.22 (1.05,1.42)

0.015

 NCMS

0.66 (0.54,0.80)

<0.001

2.36 (1.96,2.85)

<0.001

1.28 (1.00,1.65)

0.052

1.33 (1.09,1.62)

0.008

 Others

0.86 (0.49,1.51)

0.595

0.93 (0.61,1.40)

0.715

0.79 (0.44,1.39)

0.407

1.21 (0.71,2.07)

0.558

Variables weren’t balanced after implementation of the PS

 Age

1.01 (1.01,1.02)

<0.001

1.01 (1.01,1.02)

<0.001

1.01 (1.01,1.02)

<0.001

1.00 (0.97,1.01)

0.411

 BMI

1.02 (1.00,1.04)

0.073

1.01 (0.99,1.03)

0.239

1.07 (1.04,1.10)

<0.001

1.00 (0.98,1.02)

0.988

 Sex (Male vs Female)

0.97 (0.81,1.17)

0.756

0.68 (0.58,0.80)

<0.001

1.10 (0.90,1.35)

0.366

1.15 (0.97,1.36)

0.121

 Household type (Agricultural vs Non-agricultural)

1.03 (0.87,1.22)

0.7561

1.08 (0.95,1.23)

0.220

1.14 (0.95,1.37)

0.161

0.79 (0.68,0.92)

0.032

Drink (vs not drink)

 less than 1 time in a week

0.72 (0.57,0.90)

0.004

1.03 (0.86,1.24)

0.752

0.65 (0.51,0.83)

<0.001

0.68 (0.55,0.84)

<0.001

 1–2 times in a week

0.73 (0.50,1.09)

0.123

1.16 (0.84,1.59)

0.373

0.65 (0.44,0.96)

0.029

0.61 (0.43,0.87)

0.006

 More than 2 times a week

0.64 (0.45,0.89)

0.009

0.83 (0.64,1.08)

0.161

0.59 (0.42,0.83)

0.002

0.92 (0.65,1.29)

0.612

Physical exercises status (vs more than 6 times a week)

 3–5 times a week

0.87 (0.67,1.12)

0.267

0.88 (0.73,1.06)

0.183

0.71 (0.54,0.92)

0.010

0.75 (0.60,0.94)

0.011

 1–2 times a week

1.24 (0.90,1.72)

0.188

0.86 (0.7,1.07)

0.170

0.54 (0.41,0.72)

<0.001

1.06 (0.81,1.40)

0.669

 Less than 1 time a week

0.69 (0.47,1.02)

0.061

0.6 (0.45,0.79)

<0.001

0.93 (0.59,1.46)

0.749

1.14 (0.76,1.71)

0.538

 Never

0.63 (0.53,0.75)

<0.001

0.91 (0.8,1.05)

0.190

0.76 (0.62,0.93)

0.009

0.73 (0.62,0.86)

0.001

Education (vs less than high school)

 high school graduate

1.81 (1.49,2.20)

<0.001

1.04 (0.91,1.18)

0.565

0.87 (0.72,1.03)

0.154

1.54 (1.29,1.82)

<0.001

 higher than high school

1.24 (0.85,1.81)

0.270

0.98 (0.76,1.27)

0.882

0.75 (0.52,1.06)

0.104

1.07 (0.77,1.74)

0.700

Note:

UEBMI the urban employee basic health insurance scheme, URBMI the urban resident basic medical insurance, NCMS the new cooperative medical scheme, PS propensity score

These confounders in the outcome model are those variables are not balanced after implementation of the propensity score

a patients measured their blood pressure within a month;

b patients achieved publicity of precautionary knowledge on hypertension within three months;

c patients took antihypertensive drugs every day;

d patient had their blood pressure under control

Expenditure of outpatient services due to hypertension

36.57 % of hypertension patients (n = 2916) turned to outpatient services for help due to hypertension within 2 weeks. The status of outpatient service expenditure among patients with three main health insurances was show in Table 4. There was no significant statistical difference on expenditure among three main health insurances, while the self-evaluation of the expenditures among the three groups showed significant statistical difference (p < 0.001). Higher proportion of patients with NCMS considered the cost of outpatient service cheap (58.89 % vs 33.80 % in UEBMI and 35.67 % in URBMI).
Table 4

Outpatient services expenditures of hypertension patients

 

UEBMI

URBMI

NCMS

 

n = 1631

n = 785

n = 434

Expenditure (median, IQR)

17 (5,35)

15 (0,40)

10 (5,30)

Evaluation of the expenditure

Cheap (n, %)

551 (33.80 %)

280 (35.67 %)

255 (58.89 %)

Appropriate (n,%)

857 (52.58 %)

422 (53.76 %)

148 (34.18 %)

Expensive (n, %)

222 (13.62 %)

83 (10.57 %)

30 (6.93 %)

Note:

UEBMI the urban employee basic health insurance scheme, URBMI the urban resident basic medical insurance, NCMS the new cooperative medical scheme

The unit of expenditure is China Yuan (CNY)

One patient with UEBMI and one patient with NCMS did not provides their evaluation about the expenditures

Discussion

Our Study enriches the general literature of social health insurance [8, 9]. Using data collected in 2013 from the fifth Health Service Survey of Shanghai, we found that hypertension was a big burden to the local health system, but most hypertension patients achieved good management of hypertension and had their blood pressure under controlled. However, our results demonstrated that there were some differences on the management of hypertension among patients with different health insurances.

Our result showed that 27.2 % of residents who were aged ≥18 years old had hypertension, lower than the national level (33.6 %) [16]. Because of the self-reported hypertension status, the actual prevalence of hypertension in Shanghai would be higher than the level in our study. Among the hypertension patients, most of them measured blood pressure within a month (89.5 %), took antihypertensive drugs every day (90.5 %) and had their blood pressure under control (85.8 %). The blood pressure controlled rate was much higher than the reported nation level (approximately 20 % patients with blood pressure under control) [16, 17]. Self-report could overestimate the blood pressure controlled rate, and another possible explanation is that the blood pressure controlled rate in our study is estimated based on the respondents with hypertension awareness. Of those individuals with hypertension in the national survey, only one quarter interviewees were aware of their condition let alone taking measure to control hypertension. Actually, our results were similar to the results of Li’s previous study [18] based on registered hypertensive patients in Shanghai (measured blood pressure controlled rate: 83.2 %). The rate of drug treatment (90.5 %) is also similar to that of their study (95.2 %). Higher health insurance coverage is associated with improved drug treatment rate and medication adherence which may translate into better control of hypertension.

An interesting finding of our study was that patients enrolled in URBMI or NCMS were more likely to have their blood pressure under control as compared with those enrolled in UEBMI in Shanghai. Even though patients enrolled in different insurances had similar proportion of taking antihypertensive drugs every day. These results were different from those of previous studies which suggested that patients with UEBMI provided better benefit package and had better control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) than those with URBMI and NCMS [9, 17]. Due to the complicacy of hypertension management, the difference of blood pressure control among different insurances can be attributed to many potential causes. More of the patients enrolled in UEBMI were male (54.13 % vs 43.34 % in URBMI and 41.54 % in NCMS). In some studies [19, 20], male had lower proportion of effective hypertension management than female, which might reduce the efficiency of hypertension management in patients enrolled in UEBMI. Another potential reason is the big differences in precautionary knowledge on hypertension. Our results demonstrated that patients enrolled in URBMI or NCMS were more likely to achieved publicity of precautionary knowledge on hypertension than patients enrolled in UEBMI. However, after adjusted for demographic confounders and the status of measuring blood pressure within a month, achieved publicity of hypertension prevention knowledge and taking antihypertensive drugs every day, the differences still remained. Another possible explanation might be that unlike URBMI and NCMS, UEBMI had covered the expenditures in pharmacy. Patients enrolled in UEBMI can access antihypertensive drugs more conveniently from pharmacy, while patients enrolled in URBMI or NCMS have to go to community health service centers or general hospitals for their antihypertensive drugs. Thus, patients with UEBMI insurance might get less professional medical advice on individual-based management of hypertension if they got antihypertensive drugs from pharmacy. Previous study also suggested that having a regular place to receive medical care was an important factor for hypertension control [13]. Self-management is an indispensable part in hypertension management. To improve the level of hypertension management, adequate knowledge on hypertension and effective self-management are as important as effective drug therapy [13, 21].

In the aspect of outpatient services expenditure due to hypertension, there was similar outpatient service expenditure among patients enrolled in different insurances. Meanwhile, more patients enrolled in NCMS considered the expenditure cheap than patients enrolled in UEBMI or URBMI. However, in China, reimbursement ratio was usually lower for NCMS than for either URBMI or UEBMI [22]. There are two reasons which may account for this phenomenon. First, hypertension drugs are usually cheap and most of the expenditure can be reimbursed. However, NCMS patients may get fewer subsidies on other more expensive drugs or therapies. By comparing the actual expenditure on hypertension drugs to other drugs or therapies, they may feel the expenditure of hypertension drugs cheaper. Second, NCMS patients have much lower annual household income and the ratio of subsidy for hypertension drugs to annual household income in NCMS patients is higher than that of UEBMI or URBMI patients, so NCMS patients are more likely to consider the expenditure “cheap”.

There are some inevitable limitations in this study. First, most information is self-reported which could lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of hypertension. Previous researchers [23] have compared the agreement between biomedical and self-reported measurements of hypertension of a Chinese national community sample. And they suggested self-reported data can be a reliable estimate of the prevalence of hypertension in developed communities or provinces. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when applying our results Second, we did not take patients only had other types of insurance into consideration because most patients (97.3 %) were enrolled in NCMS, URBMI or UEBMI. Third, while propensity score weight is useful for controlling for observed covariates, it is not helpful to control for unobserved covariates, except to the extent that they are correlated with the observed covariates. And due to the inherent methodological limitation of cross-section study, longitudinal quasi-experimental studies are needed to further confirm the differences of hypertension-related outcomes among the three types of health insurances.

Conclusions

The study is a large-scale, population based study to investigate the differences of hypertension management among people enrolled in different health insurances in Shanghai, China. This cross-sectional study demonstrated that, in Shanghai, most hypertension patients achieved good management of hypertension. There might be some differences of hypertension management among people with different health insurances. Patients enrolled in URBMI or NCMS were more likely to achieve publicity of precautionary knowledge about hypertension within 3 months and were related to better management of hypertension than patients enrolled in UEBMI. Precautionary knowledge about hypertension should be disseminated widely, especially to people enrolled in UEBMI. Besides, there is still a lot of work to do in order to consolidate existing social health insurance schemes and achieve universal health coverage in China.

Abbreviations

BMI: 

Body mass index

CI: 

Confidence interval

CVD: 

Cardiovascular disease

IPTW: 

Inverse probability of treatment weighting

NCD: 

Non-communicable diseases

NCMS: 

The new cooperative medical scheme

OR: 

Odds ratios

PS: 

Propensity score

UEBMI: 

The urban employee basic health insurance scheme

URBMI: 

The urban resident basic medical insurance scheme

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the the Shanghai Municipal Commission Health and Family Planning for their assistance in designing this study. We also thank the respondents and data managers who gave their time and effort to participate in the fifth Health Service Survey of Shanghai.

Funding

This study was sponsored by a grant from the key discipline for construction of evidence-based public health in Shanghai (NO. 12GWZX0602), the Fourth Round of Three-year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program: Evidence-based Public Health and Health Economics (NO:15GWZK0901) and the National Nature Science Foundation of China (NO. 81502895).

Availability of data and materials

Our study was based on the data got from the Shanghai Municipal Commission Health and Family Planning. However, the government departments just approved our request for analysis. We can’t public the data without approval.

Authors’ contributions

XJZ, YZ and XX are equal contributors and co-first authors of this article. XJZ participated in the study design, revision and was the primary person responsible for drafting the manuscript. YZ contributed to study design, data analysis and revision. XX contributed to data analysis and revision. XQM contributed to data analysis. JH provided expertise for the overall design of the study, and revised and approved the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Consent for publication

All authors made significant contributions to the manuscript and all authors have read and approved the final version as well as agreed with the publishment on BMC Public Health.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This cross-sectional questionnaire survey was organized by the Shanghai Municipal Commission Health and Family Planning. As we knew, this survey didn’t contain any treatment, blood drawing or others intervention which might influence the health of participators. Informed consent was obtained by surveyors prior to data collection and personal information was with strict conservation during our analysis process. Thus no ethical approval is required for our study.

Consent

This cross-sectional questionnaire survey was organized by the Shanghai Municipal Commission Health and Family Planning. Informed consent was obtained by surveyors prior to data collection.

There is no individual clinical data presented in our article.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Statistics, Second Military Medical University, No. 800 Xiangyin Road, Shanghai, 200433, China

References

  1. World Health Organization. World health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World Health Organ Geneva Switz. 2002;16(2):230.Google Scholar
  2. Gu H, Li W, Yang J, Wang Y, Bo J, Liu L. Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control among Han and four ethnic minorities (Uygur, Hui, Mongolian and Dai) in China. J Hum Hypertens. 2015;29(9):555–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Wang W, Hu SS, Kong LZ, Gao RL, Zhu ML, Wang WY, Wu ZS, Chen WW, Yang JG, Ma LY, Liu MB. Summary of report on cardiovascular diseases in China, 2012. Biomed Environ Sci. 2014;27(7):552–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jacques A, Bernard C, Nathalie G, Christelle C, Michel S, Jean Pierre C. Why is hypertension so frequently uncontrolled in secondary prevention? J Hypertens. 2003;21(6):1199–205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ovbiagele B, Goldstein LB, Higashida RT, Howard VJ, Johnston SC, Khavjou OA, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Mohl S, Sacco RL, et al. Forecasting the Future of Stroke in the United States A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(8):2361–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Li S, Bruen BK, Lantz PM, Mendez D. Impact of Health Insurance Expansions on Nonelderly Adults With Hypertension. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E105.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillespie C, Kuklina EV, Briss PA, Blair NA, Hong Y. Vital Signs: Prevalence, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension-United States, 1999–2002 and 2005–2008 (Reprinted from MMWR, vol 60, pg 103–108, 2011). JAMA. 2011;305(15):1531.Google Scholar
  8. Meng QY, Fang H, Liu XY, Yuan BB, Xu J. Consolidating the social health insurance schemes in China: towards an equitable and efficient health system. Lancet. 2015;386(10002):1484–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu J, Shi L, Meng Q, Khan MM. Income-related inequality in health insurance coverage: analysis of China Health and Nutrition Survey of 2006 and 2009. Int J Equity Health. 2012;11(18):1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Li Y, Rao K, Ren X. Use of and factors associated with self-treatment in China. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Xu Y, Gao J, Zhou Z, Xue Q, Yang J, Luo H, Li Y, Lai S, Chen G. Measurement and explanation of socioeconomic inequality in catastrophic health care expenditure: evidence from the rural areas of Shaanxi Province. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:256.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bello Y. Error Detection in Outpatients’ Age Data Using Demographic Techniques. Int J Pure Appl Sci Technol. 2012;10:27–36.Google Scholar
  13. Gu J, Zhang XJ, Wang TH, Zhang Y, Chen Q. Hypertension knowledge, awareness, and self-management behaviors affect hypertension control: a community-based study in Xuhui District, Shanghai, China. Cardiology. 2014;127(2):96–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Park JM, Kang K, Cho YJ, Hong KS, Lee KB, Park TH, Lee SJ, Ko Y, Han MK, Lee J. Comparative Effectiveness of Prestroke Aspirin on Stroke Severity and Outcome. Ann Neurol. 2016;79:560–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Mccaffrey DF, Griffin BA, Almirall D, Slaughter ME, Ramchand R, Burgette LF. A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3388–414.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. He J. Hypertension in China: a large and increasing public health challenge. J Hypertens. 2016;34(1):29–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng XL, Pang M, Beard J. Health system strengthening and hypertension awareness, treatment and control: data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(1):29–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H, Wei X, Wong MC, Yang N, Wong SY, Lao X, Griffiths SM. A comparison of the quality of hypertension management in primary care between Shanghai and Shenzhen: a cohort study of 3196 patients. Medicine. 2015;94(5):e455.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Li YC, Wang LM, Jiang Y, Li XY, Zhang M, Hu N. Prevalence of hypertension among Chinese adults in 2010. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi [Chinese journal of preventive medicine]. 2010;46(5):409–13.Google Scholar
  20. Xu Y, Bi Y, Li M, Wang W, Wang T, Wang L, Jiang Y, Xu M, Lu J, Li J, et al. Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in China: The China Metabolic Risk Factor Study. Circulation. 2013;127(12):A005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Carter BL. Implementing the new guidelines for hypertension: JNC 7, ADA, WHO-ISH. J Manag Care Pharm. 2004;10(5 Suppl A):S18–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fu R, Wang Y, Bao H, Wang Z, Li Y, Su S, Liu M. Trend of Urban-rural Disparities in Hospital Admissions and Medical Expenditure in China from 2003 to 2011. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108571.108571–7.Google Scholar
  23. Meng N, Qiang Z, Min Y. Comparison of self-reported and biomedical data on hypertension and diabetes: findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009836.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement