the largest insurance program in history: saving one

59
1 PRELIMINARY – do not cite The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One Million Lives Per Year in China Jonathan Gruber, MIT and NBER Mengyun Lin, National University of Singapore Junjian Yi, National University of Singapore March, 2021 Abstract: The developing world is adjusting to rising medical spending risk through expanded use of insurance. The largest single insurance expansion in the developed world was the National Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) that was rolled out in China from 2003-2008, which provided comprehensive insurance to rural Chinese, and which at its peak covered 800 million people. Despite the size and importance of this program, there is little convincing evidence on its health impacts. We combine aggregate mortality data with individual survey data, and identify the impact of the NCMS from program rollout and heterogeneity across areas in their rural share. We find that there was a significant decline in aggregate mortality, with the program saving more than one million lives per year at its peak, and explaining 78% of the entire increase in life expectancy in China over this period. We confirm these mortality effects using micro-data, and expand our analysis to show correspondingly large effects on health care utilization and other health outcomes. We show that there were sizeable reductions in out-of-pocket spending at the top of the expense distribution. We also document a key potential mechanism through which the program improved health was encouraging increased private investment in public health care facilities.

Upload: others

Post on 11-Jun-2022

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

1

PRELIMINARY – do not cite

The Largest Insurance Program in

History: Saving One Million Lives Per

Year in China

Jonathan Gruber, MIT and NBER

Mengyun Lin, National University of Singapore

Junjian Yi, National University of Singapore

March, 2021

Abstract: The developing world is adjusting to rising medical spending risk through

expanded use of insurance. The largest single insurance expansion in the developed world

was the National Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) that was rolled out in China from

2003-2008, which provided comprehensive insurance to rural Chinese, and which at its peak

covered 800 million people. Despite the size and importance of this program, there is little

convincing evidence on its health impacts. We combine aggregate mortality data with

individual survey data, and identify the impact of the NCMS from program rollout and

heterogeneity across areas in their rural share. We find that there was a significant decline

in aggregate mortality, with the program saving more than one million lives per year at its

peak, and explaining 78% of the entire increase in life expectancy in China over this period.

We confirm these mortality effects using micro-data, and expand our analysis to show

correspondingly large effects on health care utilization and other health outcomes. We

show that there were sizeable reductions in out-of-pocket spending at the top of the

expense distribution. We also document a key potential mechanism through which the

program improved health was encouraging increased private investment in public health

care facilities.

Page 2: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

2

Medical spending risk is already one of the greatest sources of financial risk in

developed countries of the world. Fortunately, virtually every developed country has either

government or privately-provided insurance programs that cover the vast majority of the

population. In 2018, across all OECD nations, as a result, the share of health care costs borne

out of pocket amounts to only 20.1% of health care costs, and 1.7% of incomes. 1

In developing nations, health insurance coverage of the population is more sporadic.

Traditionally, this has not been a priority for development because both health care quality

and spending were low. In 2018 for example, across all low-income countries (LIC), 44.1% of

health care spending was out of pocket – and this amounted to 3.45% of incomes. 2

The need for health insurance has changed dramatically in the developing world in

recent decades as higher quality medical techniques have been extended worldwide. The

benefit of improved medical access in the developing world is one key source of dramatic

improvements in life expectancy around the world. Over the past two centuries, every

region of the world has seen its life expectancy double; the global average life expectancy

today is higher than any country in 1950. 3 Even the least developed countries have seen

their average life expectancy grow by almost 25 years since 1960. 4 But this improved

1 20.1%: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?ThemeTreeId=9. This is an unweighted average across all OECD

countries. 1.7%: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AV_AN_WAGE. This is an unweighted average across all OECD countries (Australia, Colombia and Turkey are removed since they are missing data). We take per capita OOP costs and divide by average annual wage in each country and average these percentages. 2 44.1%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.OOPC.CH.ZS?locations=XM. This is a simple average of

OOP as a percentage of health care expenditure of low-income countries as designated by the world bank. The data for Syria is from 2012 and for Yemen is from 2015. 3.45%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?end=2016&locations=XM&start=2016&view=bar. This is an unweighted average across all low-income countries as designated by the world bank (Eritrea, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are removed due to incomplete information). We take per capita OOP costs and divide by adjusted net national income per capita in each country and average these percentages. 3 https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy-

globally#:~:text=Globally%20the%20life%20expectancy%20increased,more%20than%20twice%20as%20long. 4 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=XL

Page 3: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

3

medical care comes at a cost. Total medical spending in low-income countries have risen

from 4.2% to 5.3% of GDP over the past 20 years. 5

As medical costs rise, there has been a dramatic expansion of public insurance

programs in developing countries. Table 1 lists the introduction of new insurance programs

in some of the largest developing countries over the past 30 years, along with estimates of

the number of individuals enrolled in these programs. The largest single expansion in Table

1 is the New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS) program that was initiated in China in

2003. This program provided comprehensive coverage of hospital expenditures for rural

households in China. Within five years of its introduction, it was covering over 800 million

persons, making it the largest insurance program in the history of the modern world (Zhu et

al., 2017). Expenditure on the program was 0.21% of GDP or 4.56% of total health care

spending in China in 2008, growing to 0.43% of GDP, or 7.16% of health care spending, in

2015.6

Despite its rank as the largest insurance expansion in modern history, there is little

evidence on the impacts of the NCMS on health outcomes. There are only 3 articles in the

economics literature, as well as 6 more in the public health literature, assessing the impact

of the NCMS on health outcomes. These papers generally find little benefit for health from

this enormous program – consistent with limited positive findings for a number of massive

insurance expansions in the developed world. But, as we discuss below, these papers suffer

from a number of concerns over identification and precision.

We provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the NCMS on the health of

rural residents in China. We combine multiple sources of data to paint a broad picture of

5 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=XM

6 Data on NCMS expenditure is from China Health Statistical Yearbook, 2008 & 2016; data on China's GDP is

from China Statistical Yearbook, 2008 & 2016.

Page 4: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

4

the effect of NCMS on mortality and other health outcomes, as well as on medical care

utilization and spending. We rely on the fact that this program was rolled out at different

times across areas, and that its impact across areas is proportional to the share of the

population living in particular rural areas. The share of counties covered by the program

rose from 11% in 2003 to 95% by 2008. Meanwhile, across counties in China, there is wide

variation in the agricultural population eligible for this program; for example, in the sample

of counties that we use for our mortality analysis, the agricultural share varies from 5% to

96%. As we show clearly throughout the paper, the areas that were differentially shocked

by this new insurance program were on almost identical trends before the law's passage.

We find that the passage of the law created enormous benefits for the health of the

rural Chinese population. Within eight years of passage by 2010, the program had enrolled

88% of China's rural population and 62% of the country's total population. We estimate

that this led directly to a reduction in the mortality rate among the enrolled population by

21%, and extended life expectancies by 4.3%. From 2003 to 2010, China saw a 2.5-year

increase in life expectancies, and the introduction of the NCMS program explains over 78%

(1.94 years) of that overall improvement. 7 Since 2008, we estimate this program saved

more than one million lives per year were saved – a population larger than seven U.S.

states.

Moreover, this program was incredibly cost-efficient. We use data on program

expenditures to illustrate that the cost per life saved was RMB 66.1 thousand ($9.8

thousand US) from 2004-2010. This is well below both estimates of the value of a life in

China and other measures such as compensation for accidental death.

7 China Statistical Yearbook 2011.

Page 5: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

5

We then explore the mechanisms through which this program achieved its success,

using two micro-data sets on health care utilization and health outcomes among large

samples of the Chinese population. This analysis allows us to estimate treatment-on-the-

treated estimates of those who actually enrolled in the program, and to examine a rich array

of health care utilization, health outcomes, and out-of-pocket spending protection.

We find that the law dramatically improved health care utilization. Individual-level

hazard models corroborate the aggregate reduction in mortality rates. In both data sets,

the probability of utilizing medical care increased by between 56% and 77%; conditional on

utilizing medical care, the healthcare expenditure increased by around 40%. Measures of

illness such as limitations of activities of daily living, cognitive deficits, and self/interviewer

assessed health improved dramatically as well, confirming that the life extension we find

reflect broader improvements in health.

We then document two key mechanisms through which these results operated:

reductions in out-of-pocket costs and expansions in supply. We show that out-of-pocket

costs fell substantially for those at the top of the spending distribution, providing protection

against catastrophic expenditures. Moreover, starting from 2003, the Chinese government

strongly encouraged private capital investment in public hospitals and clinics. Because the

NCMS only reimbursed expenses incurred in public facilities, there was a massive capital

injection into this sector. But the expansion in health care supply occurs at a much more

rapid rate in areas that were more exposed to NCMS.

This suggests that much of the improvement that arises from the NCMS may be due

to supply responses (as was the case for Thailand in Gruber et al, 2014). To further explore

this hypothesis, we note that the supply expansion was highly equalizing – there was a

larger rise in supply in areas with the smallest stock of health care facilities. We therefore

Page 6: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

6

test whether the health outcomes were equalizing – which allows us to contrast the

hypothesis that the impact was due to more patient care at existing facilities versus creating

new facilities. While imprecise, our evidence suggests that the supply mechanism is playing

role, but not the predominant one, in explaining our findings.

Our paper proceeds as follows. Section I provides background on health

transformation in the developing world. Section II describes the NCMS program and its

place in the trajectory of health care development in China. Section III describes our

multiple sources of data. Section IV carries out our aggregate analysis of mortality rates, and

computes cost effectiveness. Section V then turns to micro-data to explore impacts on

health care utilization and self-reported health, confirming the health improvements behind

our mortality results. Section VI then turns to the mechanisms behind our results, exploring

impacts on both OOP costs and on interactions with expanded supply. Section VII

concludes.

Part I: Background on Health Transformation in Developing Nations

China's health care system has gone through a radical transformation since the

founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. At that point, health care provision in

China was dominated by traditional medicine, and life expectancy was low – particularly in

rural areas. For example, in 1952, total health care spending was only 1.3% of GDP,

compared to 5% in the US in 1960.8 Life expectancy in China was 35 in 1949, and it was

even lower in rural areas. 9

In the 70 years since 1949, the Chinese health care system has undergone a

fundamental shift towards Western medicine. As a result, health care spending has risen to

8 Research Report on China Healthcare Expenditure, Ministry of Health 2008. (In Chinese)

9 China Health Statistical Yearbook 2019

Page 7: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

7

6.6% of GDP in 2018. 10 And China has seen one of the most amazing improvements in life

expectancy in the modern world, with around 120% increase to 76 in 2015. 11

But as China and other countries have modernized their health care systems, they

have faced a fundamental question of how to share this burden within society. Some

countries, such as India, Pakistan, and Singapore, have decided to place the burden mostly

on households, with the share of spending coming out of pocket above 50% in each case.

Other countries, such as Thailand and South Africa, have moved to a model comparable to

many European nations, with only about 10% of costs borne out of pocket. Nations such as

Vietnam, China, Peru and Brazil have followed a middle ground, with roughly 25-33% of

health care spending being out of pocket.

Developing nations have undertaken a variety of approaches to covering the burden

of health care spending. One approach is to reduce the user fees often attached to use of

public medical services. Gertler, Locay and Sanderson (1987), Litvack and Bodart (1993), and

Souteyrand et al. (2008) explore user fees via financing proposals in Peru, a field experiment

in Cameroon and HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries respectively; all find equity,

quality and access concerns are reduced by the elimination of fees. Gertler, Locay and

Sanderson (1987) in particular, finds that the loss in consumer welfare falls on the poor.

ZombrΓ©, De Allegri and Ridde (2017) find that removing user fees for young children in

Burkina Faso increased usage dramatically.

Most comparably for our study, there is a very large literature evaluating large scale

insurance expansions in developing nations (see Appendix 1). A structured literature review

finds 15 articles reviewing the impacts of the 1990 program in Brazil that covered roughly

200 million residents, finding significant improvements in health outcomes and reductions 10

China Health Statistical Yearbook 2019. 11

China Statistical Yearbook 2016.

Page 8: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

8

in health inequities. Seventeen articles study the impacts of the 1992 Vietnamese program

that covered 80 million residents, suggesting the program offered some financial protection

and positive spillover effects for children, but was limited effects due to non-zero premiums

and misplaced incentives which lead to high utilization but little health improvement. We

found 19 articles focused on the 1993 health care expansion in Colombia to 34 million

people, with strong evidence of higher health care utilization but more mixed evidence on

health outcomes. We found 10 studies of the 1995 Philippine program that covered as

many as one hundred million people, but once again there is little evidence of improved

outcomes. We found 30 studies exploring 1999/2005 expansions in Rwanda/Ghana to

11/12 million people, with dramatic effects on utilization, positive spillover effects for

children, reduced financial exposure and once again little evidence of

improved health outcomes. And we found 8 articles covering the 2002 expansion to more

than 50 million people in Thailand, with strong reductions in OOP and medical utilization,

and some evidence of improved outcomes.

Taken together, this large literature suggests that enormous insurance expansions in

developing countries can play a major role in reducing OOP and in increasing utilization. But

evidence on health impacts is surprisingly limited. More generally, there are remarkably

few comprehensive evaluations of the impact of health insurance reform on OOP spending,

utilization and health outcomes.

Given its size, there is a surprisingly modest literature evaluating the NCMS on

health. We are aware of only three economics papers that focus primarily on the health

impacts of the program. Chen and Jin (2012) use a cross-sectional approach using aggregate

data from the 2006 Census to examine the impact of the NCMS on mortality, and find little

effect, perhaps unsurprisingly given differences between early versus late adopters of the

Page 9: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

9

program. Lei and Lin (2009) use micro-data covering the early years of the program (2000-

2006) and find little impacts on self-reported health status using an individual fixed effects

regression (which doesn't control for endogeneity of NCMS enrollment) or cross-sectional

instrumental variables using county dummies (problematic as noted above). Cheng et al.

(2015) use propensity score methods to attempt to control for endogenous enrollment in

their micro-data study; they find NCMS improves activities of daily living, but not mortality

outcomes.

There are six papers in the public health literature evaluating the health effects of

NCMS. Perhaps the closest paper to ours is Zhou et al. (2017), who carry out a differences-

in-differences study on aggregate mortality data using the timing of NCMS expansion across

rural counties. They find no effect on mortality, although their confidence intervals are

fairly large. As we explain below, the substantial variation in exposure of counties to the

program, as well as underlying trends in non-rural counties, explain the much stronger

effects we find.

There is a larger literature on the other effects of the program, but it is once again

quite mixed. Several studies find increases in health care utilization: Long et al. (2012) find a

higher use of Cesarean-section delivery, and Wagstaff et al. (2009) find higher inpatient and

outpatient utilization. But Lei and Lin (2009) and Babiarz et al. (2010) find no change in

overall medical use. Lei and Lin (2009) and Wagstaff et al. (2009) find no effect on OOP

expenditure, while Sun et al. (2009) find a sizeable reduction in catastrophic medical

spending; Liu (2016) suggests that families are sufficiently self-insured against health

spending by non-insurance mechanisms.

Part II: The New Cooperative Medical Scheme

Page 10: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

10

NCMS is the successor of the Cooperative Medical Scheme (CMS). The CMS was

established in the 1950s alongside the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The

CMS covered up to more than 90% of rural residents from early 1950s to the economic

reform from 1979 (Liu and Cao, 1992). It was funded by contributions from enrollees and

subsidies from collective welfare funds at the commune level. 12 The primary healthcare

providers in rural areas were the so-called barefoot doctors. Although only receiving

preliminary healthcare training, these doctors played a critical role in providing primary

healthcare and public health services under government subsidies. However, the CMS

began to collapse after 1979 when the rural communes were dissolved under the market-

oriented economic reform. As a result, the CMS coverage of rural residents declined sharply

from nearly universal to almost zero in the 1990s (Blumenthal and Hsiao, 2015). Meanwhile,

the vast majority of barefoot doctors left the profession. Only a few remained for private

practice, leaving the rural areas again with undersupply of qualified medical providers.

In the absence of any health insurance and qualified medical providers in rural areas,

individuals or families became the only payer for all medical costs in the 1990s. The share of

out-of-pocket expenses paid by individuals and families out of the total healthcare expenses

at the national level tripled, from 20% in 1979 to nearly 60% in 2000.13 During this period,

the rise in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses dramatically outpaced income growth. In real

terms, total out of pocket spending rose 30-fold from 1970 to 2000, while disposable

income rose only 5-fold (4.5-fold) for urban (rural) residents.14 With the rising out-of-pocket

12

The rural commune was the administrative organization that owned the land, organized, and distributed the production, and provided social services such as healthcare before 1978. It was later transformed into the village. 13

China Health Statistical Yearbook 2001. 14

China Health Statistical Yearbook 2001 and China Statistical Yearbook 2001.Disposable income indicates the after-tax income that can be saved or used for consumption, consisting of wage, business, property, and government transfer. It is reported by the National Bureau of Statistics at the end of every year.

Page 11: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

11

expenses, the rural families were fully exposed to health risks and felt great financial

burden, which led the Chinese government to implement a new public health insurance

program for rural families at the onset of the new millennium.

In 2003, China initiated the NCMS program. This new program was administered

separately in each of the 2,800 county-level administrative units in China since most rural

residents are scattered across the townships and villages governed by the county

government.15 Under broad guidelines issued by the central government, at least two to

three pilot counties were selected in each province in the first year, and more counties were

gradually included, aiming at achieving full coverage by 2010 (State Council, 2002). The

rollout of the program across counties is shown in Figure 1. In 2003, the first year when the

program was available, only 11% of counties implemented it. There followed a rapid

expansion so that by 2008, coverage was virtually universal in all counties. Its coverage fell

back after 2008 because some counties attempted to replace the NCMS with a new scheme

covering both rural and urban residents after a parallel program started to roll out in urban

areas.

The NCMS targeted rural residents, and agricultural hukou serves as the eligibility

requirement. The Hukou system is a household registration system implemented after the

establishment of the People's Republic of China. This system categorizes

each Chinese citizen into two types: an agricultural hukou holder or a non-agricultural

hukou holder. The hukou is used to determine one's eligibility for social service and welfare

to his registered place of residence. One's Hukou type is inherited from parents, and its

change is highly restricted by the government. According to the China Population Census,

the share of agricultural hukou remained relatively flat during the first ten years of the

15

On average, one county has 14 townships and each township contains 16 villages.

Page 12: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

12

2000s, at 72.31 % in 2000 and 70.86 % in 2010; due to rapid industrialization of China over

the past decade, it has fallen to 55.62% today.16

The central government issued broad guidelines for the design and implementation

of the NCMS program; meanwhile, local governments in each county had considerable

discretion over details such as premiums and coverage of spending. As a result, the

program's benefits packages vary geographically. Generally, the program focuses on

inpatient care, the largest source of health care spending risk, and provides a "catastrophic"

insurance coverage design. During the initial years , individuals who were hospitalized were

responsible for a deductible of around 200-500 RMB (about $25-$62), which was about 6-

15% of net annual income per capita in 2005 (You and Kobayashi, 2009). Beyond this

deductible, there was a coinsurance rate of 30-50%. But overall exposure is capped at

15,000 RMB (about $1,875), roughly five times net annual income per capita of rural

residents in 2005 (Bai and Wu, 2014). As time went by, the NCMS benefits became more

and more generous. The coinsurance rate decreased to around 30% in 2012, and the

reimbursement limit reached over 60,000 RMB (about $8,862) (Liang and Langenbrunner,

2013) . More recently, the coinsurance rate continued to decrease to 10%-30%, and the

limit is adjusted annually to stay above eight times the net annual income per capita of rural

residents (Burns and Liu, 2017).

In addition, the program provided more limited coverage of outpatient care. As

noted in Du and Zhang (2007), only 18% of counties provided payment for outpatient care in

2006; of that group, three-fifths reimbursed all expenses with a coinsurance rate beyond a

deductible, and the other two-fifths merely covered certain critical diseases. 17 In another

16

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202002/t20200228_1728917.html. 17

Critical diseases refer to those incur catastrophic outpatient cost, such as nephrosis and hepatopathy. The list of critical diseases covered was designed by local government, and therefore differed across counties.

Page 13: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

13

65% of counties, the program set up mandatory household medical savings accounts that

would be used to pay for outpatient care.18 These accounts are funded by the individual

contribution to plan premiums, which started as roughly 10 RMB and rose to roughly 20

RMB by 2012 (Liang and Langenbrunner, 2013). Over time, this savings mechanism has been

gradually abolished and replaced by a more typical outpatient reimbursement program,

with a reimbursement rate of 50% to 80% (Milcent, 2018).

The NCMS was paid for by an insurance premium. The central government set a

minimum level, and the local government adjusted it according to local income and benefits

packages. At the start of the program, the minimum premium was 30 RMB ($3.63) per year,

of which the government (the individual) paid 2/3 (1/3). By 2008, the minimum premium

had risen to 100 RMB ($14.50), of which the government paid 80%. In counties with savings

accounts for outpatient expenditures, Individual premiums were the funding source for the

savings accounts.

Participation in this program was voluntary. However, due to the modest premiums,

intense government subsidies, and strong government mobilization ability, participation

rates were as high as 75% in the three years of initiation and increased to 96% in 2010.

Individuals who paid the premium and enrolled in the program received a certificate card

that could be used when visiting clinics and hospitals.

There was a significant debate over the potential efficacy of the NCMS. Concerns

were raised along three dimensions. The first was that the benefits were not generous

enough – that the incomplete coverage of outpatient care and the relatively high cost

sharing would mitigate any health benefits (You and Kobayashi, 2009). The second was that

18

Establishing and contributing to the household savings account was mandatory in counties that applied this scheme. The amount of contribution, which was by reallocation of the total premiums collected from both individuals and the government, was determined by local governments, and varied across counties (You and Kobayashi, 2009).

Page 14: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

14

participation was voluntary, leading to low enrollment and potential adverse selection

(Milcent, 2018). The third was that the decentralized administration of the NCMS at the

county level would be problematic because risk pools would not be large enough and local

governments would not have the capacity to support the program (Burns and Liu, 2017).

For this reason, the health benefits of NCMS were an open question.

Notably, there was a corresponding change in the role of the private sector in

financing health care supply around the same time. Before 2000, the Chinese healthcare

market was almost exclusively run by public sector. Although private clinics were allowed to

operate, they were extremely limited through unfavorable tax and reimbursement policies.

In addition, private investment in public medical facilities was illegal. In 2003, the

government began allowing private investment in public health facilities in order to address

the coming increase in the demand for medical care. Private capital was encouraged to

invest in the public healthcare sector via forms such as entrusted operation and joint

venture. Private investors were allowed to send delegates to the administrative boards of

public facilities (although board leadership was still public); these delegates would take part

in operations of public facilities and may propose to hire professional managers to improve

the management efficiency. The fixed-asset investment in China's healthcare industry by

the sources of funds is shown in Figure A1 in Appendix 2. We see that the drastic increase in

the investment has been mainly driven by equity investment, starting in 2003.

In addition, health insurance coverage was extended through a new program

introduced for urban areas in 2008, Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI). This

program was much smaller than the NCMS, targeting 210 million unemployed urban

residents in 2010, which is only one-fourth of those covered by the NCMS. In 2008, the

government started combining the URBMI with the NCMS to form a new public health

Page 15: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

15

insurance program, Urban and Rural Residents Basic Medical Insurance (URRBMI) (Milcent,

2018).

Part III: Data

We use a variety of data sets for our analysis. To define our treatment variable, we

focus on China's 2000 Population Census. This provides the share of the population with

agricultural Hukou in each county. The distribution of this share across counties in China is

shown in Figure 2.

For aggregate mortality, we turn to the China Death Surveillance Point Dataset (DSP).

This is a nationally representative data set which records all deaths and population counts

by sex and age. The data includes information from a sample of counties throughout China.

Round 1, from 1991-2000, included 145 counties, while Round 2, from 2004-2012, included

161 counties. We hand collected data on the dates of implementation of NCMS, and were

able to gather that data for 121 of the 161 counties included in Round 2.19 This forms our

analysis sample.

Our key dependent variables are age-adjusted mortality rates and life expectancy at

birth at the county/year level.20 We focus our analysis on the years 2004 (the first year

available in the second panel) to 2010. A potential confounder of our analysis is the new

insurance program introduced for urban areas in 2008 which, while much smaller, weakens

19

We actively searched through official announcements of NCMS implementation from local governments' official websites and news reports. We compared the characteristics of counties with missing information on the starting year of NCMS and those of the remaining counties using the DSP data and 2000 China Population Census. We did not detect any significant difference between the two groups. See Table A1 in Appendix 3. 20

We obtain the county-level mortality rates by age from recorded deaths and population counts. These mortality rates are used to calculate the life expectancy at birth and age-adjusted mortality rates. The age adjustment is based on direct standardization (Curtin and Klein, 1995), where the standardized population by age is from China's 2000 Population Census.

Page 16: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

16

the comparison to some extent with non-rural counties. As we show below, excluding the

later years strengthens our results.

The means from these data are shown in the first panel of Table 2. For comparability,

we also show means for these variables for the nation as a whole as well. We find that,

along every dimension, there are no significant differences between our sample and the

entire nation.

We then turn to micro-data analyses of individual impacts. For this, we use two data

sets. The Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) provides data from

individual face-to-face interviews among the elderly, in seven waves during 1998-2014 from

22 provinces in China. 21 Survivors in each wave are re-interviewed, while the deceased are

replaced by new participants to maintain sample balance; however, the deceased family

members are interviewed for information about the deceased, such as the date of death.

The sample began with those elderly above age 80, then added those aged 65-79 since

2002, and included the elders' adult children aged 35-64 in the 2002 and 2005 waves. For

our analysis, we include individuals aged 65 - 110 for all waves from 1998-2014, except for

new participants in 2014.22 Our final sample for the mortality analysis is 78,446

observations of 33,307 unique individuals, among which 19,857 died as of 2014; more than

80% of the sample is above age 80. We restrict our sample to the survivors in the analysis of

other health outcomes and healthcare utilization.

We use several key variables from these data, as summarized in the first panel of

Table 3. The survey asks whether the individual suffered from a serious illness in the last

21

The information was collected in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014, respectively. The official website of the CLHLS: https://sites.duke.edu/centerforaging/programs/chinese-longitudinal-healthy-longevity-survey-clhls/. 22

Sample age is restricted because data on mortality and health status before dying between waves were only collected for the elders aged 65-110.

Page 17: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

17

two years, whether they have limitations in their activities of daily living23, their mental

health status24, their self-reported health status and corresponding interviewer-reported

health status25. Questions regarding healthcare utilization include whether the individuals

consider themselves as getting adequate medical services, whether they refuse medical

services due to lack of money, and their total medical spending during the previous year.

The survey also asks about alcohol consumption and smoking.

The second is the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). This is a longitudinal

survey of about 7200 households, including over 30,000 individuals in 15 provinces that vary

substantially in geography, economic development, public resources, and health

indicators.26 The Survey uses a multistage, random cluster process to draw the sample of

households, which ensures its national representativeness.27 There are ten waves from

1989 to 2015. We use waves 2000, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2011 in our analysis, and exclude

the six provinces that are not covered by the survey until 2011. Our final sample consists of

19,037 individuals residing in 225 communities of 54 counties and 9 provinces. 28

23

Limited ADL is an indicator that equals one if the individual reports a need of help with eating, dressing, moving, toileting, bathing, and continence. 24

The corresponding questions in the survey are about the frequency of the following five emotions: (1) looking on the bright side of things; (2) being happy as younger; (3) feeling fearful and anxious; (4) feeling lonely or isolated; and (5) feeling useless with age. Options include "Always", "Usually", "Sometimes", "Seldom", and "Never". Mental health is a dummy that equals one if "Always" or "Usually" is reported for the first two positive emotions, and "Seldom" or "Never" is reported for the last three negative emotions. 25

Both self-reported and interviewer-reported health status are categorical variables but on different scales. Self-reported health status is rated on a 1-5 scale: 1 for "Very good", 2 for "Good", 3 for "So-so", 4 for "Bad", and 5 for "Very bad". Interviewer-reported health status is on a 1-4 scale: 1 for "Surprisingly healthy", 2 for "Relatively healthy", 3 for "Moderately ill", and 4 for "Very ill". We define self-reported health as an indicator for "Very good" or "Good" health, and interviewer-reported health as an indicator for "Surprisingly healthy" or "Relatively healthy". The correlation between these two measures is 0.378. 26

The provinces covered in the survey changed across waves. There were nine provinces from 2000 to 2009. Three mega cities (at the same administrative level as province) were included in 2011, and another three provinces in 2015. 27

The official website of the CHNS: https://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/china. 28

In China, there are five administrative levels: central government, province, prefecture, county, and community. Community, which refers to villages, townships, or neighborhoods in counties, is the lowest-level administrative unit.

Page 18: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

18

Each wave of the CNHS includes three modules for individual, household, and

community. The individual and household modules include a variety of measures

summarized in the second panel of Table 3. The survey provides information about

limitations of daily activities29 and cognitive ability30 for those above 55 in waves 2000 to

2006. The survey asks whether the individual is diagnosed with hypertension and diabetes

for all aged above 12. In addition, the survey records information on healthcare utilization

during the past four weeks, including any use of medical service when feeling sick or getting

injured, any inpatient or outpatient care, and any use of preventive care. The survey also

asks about the total medical spending and the proportion paid by the health insurance. This

allows us to compute the out-of-pocket (OOP) spending and the ratio of OOP spending to

total spending. Finally, the CHNS has questions on whether the individuals consume alcohol

or cigarettes, and the amount of consumption per day.

For the community module, government officials report data describing the health

care infrastructure and services in their community. These data are collected at the level of

the community (of which 4-5 are typically surveyed, for a total of 225 communities in 54

counties). For each facility, the module records the type of facility, the location, the number

of healthcare workers, the number of beds, and more. We focus on facilities that provide

health care to the general public, which includes clinics and hospitals.31 All hospitals are

public, while clinics can be divided into private and public. We show descriptive statistics

for these data in the final panel of Table 3.

29

Limited ADL is an indicator that equals one if the individual has any limitation in bathing, dressing, eating, toileting, combing hair, shopping, cooking, using public transportation, managing money, and using telephone. 30

Questions on cognitive ability differ across waves. We choose six questions that are constantly asked in all three waves, including one counting exercise and five subtraction exercises. We define an indicator of Cognitive deficit that equals one if the individual did not answer all the questions correctly. 31

We exclude clinics and hospitals which exclusively serve a specific group such as all employees in a state-owned enterprise, town family planning stations, and drug stores.

Page 19: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

19

Part IV: Aggregate Impacts

Aggregate Analysis using DSP

We begin with county/year level analysis using the DSP. Using these data, we

estimate equations of the form:

log(Ycpt) = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘,2000 Γ— π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘π‘‘ + 𝑿𝑐𝑑′ π›Όπ‘˜ + 𝛿𝑐 + 𝛿𝑝𝑑 + 𝛿𝑑𝑐0,𝑑 + 𝛿𝑐 Γ— 𝑑 +

πœ–π‘π‘π‘‘

where π‘Œπ‘π‘π‘‘ denotes age-adjusted mortality rate (the number of deaths per 100,000) or the

life expectancy at birth for county 𝑐 in province 𝑝 in year 𝑑; π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘,2000is the share of

the population with an agricultural Hukou in county 𝑐 in the year 2000; π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘π‘‘ indicates that

county 𝑐 has adopted NCMS in year 𝑑; and 𝑋𝑐𝑑 includes GDP per capita and the average

wage of urban employees.32 We also include a rich set of fixed effects: county fixed effects

(𝛿𝑐), province-by-year fixed effects (𝛿𝑝𝑑), a separate set of year fixed effects for each NCMS

timing group (i.e., NCMS-timing-by-year FE, 𝛿𝑑𝑐0,𝑑), and a county-specific linear time trend

(𝛿𝑐 Γ— 𝑑).33 The variable π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘,2000 is absorbed by 𝛿𝑐. With this rich specification, our

key coefficient 𝛼1 is identified only by changes in outcomes in a county relative to that

county's trend, differentially between counties in the same province and year, in counties

with higher and lower shares of the agricultural population. Standard errors are clustered at

the county level, and regressions are weighted by county population.

Our results are presented graphically in Figure 3, which shows log mortality rate and

log life expectancy over time. These graphs are in event study format, where year zero is

the year that a county adopted NCMS, and the sample is divided into counties with above or

32

Data sources: China Statistical Yearbooks 2005-2011. 33

NCMS-timing fixed effects, in other words, indicates that we have separate year effects for all counties that implemented in 2004, 2005, etc.

Page 20: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

20

below agricultural shares at the median. We first regress log mortality rate and log life

expectancy on NCMS-timing-by-year fixed effects and a county-specific linear trend. We

then plot the residuals from this regression relative to the year of adoption; observations

more than 3 (5) years before (after) the NCMS adoption are binned into groups.

The results are striking. Both groups of counties have similar (relatively flat) trends

before the program, with the more urban counties having a significantly lower mortality

rate (by about 8%) and a longer life expectancy (by about 1.5%). But these differences

quickly shrink as soon as the NCMS is put into place, and then reverse. While mortality is

slightly rising and life expectancy is slightly falling in more urban counties after the year of

NCMS adoption, mortality is substantially reduced, and life expectancy is dramatically

extended in more rural counties. By the time a new steady state is achieved 2-3 years after

passage, mortality rates are roughly 4% lower in more rural counties, and life expectancy is

roughly 0.7% higher in more rural areas.

The regression estimates corresponding to equation (1) are shown in Table 4. We

see a substantial drop in mortality associated with counties with a high agricultural share

post the NCMS, relative to before. We estimate that living in a county with the median

agricultural share (78.5%), relative to a county with no agricultural population, implied a

decline in mortality of 15.3% at the time of the NCMS. Similarly, we show a strong and

significant correlation between agricultural share and the change in life expectancy after the

NCMS. Living in a county with the median agricultural share resulted in a rise in life

expectancy of 3.1% relative to a county with a zero agricultural share.

We also estimate the dynamic version of this specification:

log(π‘Œπ‘π‘π‘‘) = 𝛽0 + βˆ‘ π›½π‘—πŸ{𝑑 βˆ’ 𝑑𝑐0 = 𝑗}

𝑗=5𝑗=βˆ’3,π‘—β‰ βˆ’1 Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘,2000 + 𝑋𝑐𝑑

β€² π›½π‘˜ + 𝛿𝑐 + 𝛿𝑝𝑑 +

𝛿𝑑𝑐0,𝑑 + 𝛿𝑐 Γ— 𝑑 + πœ–π‘π‘π‘‘

Page 21: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

21

where 𝑑𝑐0 is the first year when county 𝑐 adopted the NCMS. The dummy variable

𝟏{𝑑 βˆ’ 𝑑𝑐0 = 𝑗} indicates that 𝑑 is 𝑗 years relative to 𝑑𝑐

0. The year before NCMS adoption is

omitted, so the estimates are normalized to zero in that year. Other variables are defined in

equation (1). The results are shown in Figure 4. We see that there is no effect before the

passage of the NCMS, and a gradually growing effect thereafter, consistent with our causal

interpretation.

The remaining columns of Table 4 show robustness checks on our results. In the

second set of columns, we present the results from specifications removing the set of

covariates (GDP per capita and average wage) described earlier; the results are nearly

identical, confirming the independence of our identifying variation from other factors. In

the third set of columns, we shorten the sample period to 2004-2007 in order to remove

any influence of the 2008 introduction of an urban insurance program; our results get

stronger but less precise when we do so, and we cannot reject that they are the same as for

the full period.

Finally, we use the earlier mortality panel that runs from 1994-2000 to run a placebo

test on our results. We take each implementation data for NCMS and shift it back by 10

years, so that the program is (counterfactually) phased in from 1994-1997. We then redo

our difference-in-differences analysis on this earlier data. As shown in the last columns of

Table 4, we find no effect on either of our dependent variables.

Interpretation

To estimate the total impact of the NCMS, we use the specification shown in the first

two columns of Table 4. For each county, we then estimate the result in each year based on

their agricultural share and their year of adoption of NCMS. Doing so, we estimate that over

Page 22: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

22

the 2004-2007 period, the NCMS saved 550,000 lives per year, and from 2008 onwards was

saving more than one million lives per year. 34

Similarly, based on our estimates the NCMS raised the life expectancy of the entire

nation of China by 1.94 years from 2003 to 2010. 35 Over this period, the life expectancy of

China roses by 2.5 years.36 This suggests that the implementation of the NCMS can explain

78% of the entire rise in life expectancy over this period.

We can also assess the cost effectiveness of NCMS based on our data. Expenditures

on NCMS in 2008 were 63.7 billion (in 2010 RMB, hereafter the same), and we estimate that

1,012 thousand lives were saved that year for the whole nation. That implies a cost of 63.0

thousand RMB ($7900 U.S.) per life saved – completely ignoring any of the additional

medical benefits that we show below.

How does this compare to typical estimates of the value of a life? Prior studies show

that the statistical value of a life in rural China varies from 148 – 296 thousand RMB

(Hammit and Zhou, 2006) to 600 thousand – 1.0 million RMB (Wang and He, 2014). The

legal compensation for death from injury in China is set to 20 times the local dispensable

income per capita, which amounts to 122 thousand RMB in rural China in 2008.37 The limit

on compensation for death by a traffic accident in liability insurance is 110 thousand RMB. 38

By any of these metrics, this program was highly cost-effective.

34 We estimate that the NCMS reduced the mortality rate by 2.9% - 12.7% between 2004 and 2007, and 13.1%

from 2008 onwards. We then calculate the number of lives saved per year during these two periods with the baseline mortality rate of 582 per 100,000 in 2003. 35

We estimate that the NCMS extended life expectancy by 2.7% by 2010, which was 1.94 years based on the life expectancy of 72.4 in 2003. 36

We use life expectancies from the 2000 and 2010 China Population Census and 2005 1% Sampling Census, and compute the life expectancies in other years between 2000 and 2010 by linear projection. 37

This standard of compensation is set by the Supreme Court in the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues of the Applicable Law in Hearing Cases of Compensation for Personal Injury (inforce since 2004). The per capita disposable income rural households in 2008 is 6.1 thousand (in 2010 RMB) according to China Statistical Yearbook 2009. 38

Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Traffic Accident Liability of Motor Vehicles.

Page 23: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

23

Part V: Effects on Utilization and Other Health Outcomes

In this section, we dive into more details on the impact of the NCMS on health care

utilization and on other measures of health outcomes. This allows us to confirm that our

mortality outcomes reflect increased utilization of health care resources, and broader

improvements in underlying health.

CLHLS Results

The 1998-2014 waves of the CLHLS offer us several advantages in exploring the

mechanisms behind our effects. Most notably, we actually measure NCMS enrollment as an

outcome variable. This allows us to estimate treatment-on-the-treated IV models, where we

instrument NCMS enrollment by an interaction term between NCMS passage in that county

and individuals' agricultural hukou status. However, the CLHLS does not ask about the

deceased's NCMS enrollment status. We assume their NCMS status remains the same as it

was in the last wave when they were alive. Since the hukou type is not available in CLHLS,

we follow the literature and assign an agricultural hukou to an individual if he or she lives in

rural areas and has no access to government-sponsored welfare scheme for residents with

urban hukou (Huang and Zhang 2020). 39

We begin by confirming our mortality results using these microdata. In particular,

we estimate a mortality hazard model of the form:

β„Žπ‘(π‘š|π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š) = β„Ž0,𝑐(π‘š)𝑒π‘₯𝑝(𝛽1π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š +𝛽2π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘π‘š +𝛽3π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– +π‘Ώπ’Š

β€²π›½π‘˜ + π›Ώπ‘‘π‘š),

(3)

39

According to the population census 2000, the correlation between agricultural hukou status and residing in rural areas is as high as 0.99.

Page 24: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

24

where β„Žπ‘(π‘š|π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š)is the hazard of death for individual 𝑖 with characteristics π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š in county

𝑐 in year π‘š relative to the first year when the individual 𝑖 participated in the survey; β„Ž0,𝑐(π‘š)

is the baseline hazard of death, which is assumed to be constant within the same county to

account for all unobserved county-specific health-related heterogeneities; π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š includes

NCMS enrollment (π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š), an indicator for NCMS county (π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘π‘š), a dummy for

having an agricultural Hukou (π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘–), calendar year fixed effects (π›Ώπ‘‘π‘š), and individual

characteristics (π‘Ώπ’Š) . These characteristics include dummies for age, gender, minority status,

household size, housing income per capita, drinking, smoking, and an indicator of getting

adequate medical service when in serious illness in childhood. All these characteristics are

held constant at their baseline values.

The NCMS enrollment status might be endogenous because participating in the

program is voluntary. For example, health endowments and risk preferences, which are

unobserved by researchers, may differ between enrollees and non-enrollees. To address

this concern, we use the county NCMS adoption interacted with one’s agricultural hukou

status to instrument for the individual NCMS enrollment status, π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š, in equation (3).

This instrument is valid because it utilizes the staggered adoption of NCMS across counties,

and a pre-determined eligibility criterion of Hukou status. The 2SLS estimates, however, are

inconsistent, because equation (3) is nonlinear. Instead, we use the control function (CF)

method (Wooldridge, 2015). Similar to the 2SLS method, the CF method has two stages. The

first-stage specification is

π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘π‘š Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– + 𝛼2π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘π‘š + 𝛼3π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– +π‘Ώπ’Šβ€²π›Όπ‘˜ +

𝛿𝑐 + π›Ώπ‘‘π‘š + νœ€π‘–π‘π‘š, (4)

where π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘–π‘π‘š indicates that individual 𝑖 in county 𝑐 has enrolled in the NCMS in year π‘š

relative to the first year when the individual 𝑖 participated in the survey; π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘π‘š indicates

Page 25: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

25

that county 𝑐 has adopted the NCMS in year π‘š, and π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– indicates that individual 𝑖

has an agricultural Hukou. We control for the same set of controls as in equation (3) along

with county fixed effects (𝛿𝑐).40 We predict the residual νœ€οΏ½Μ‚οΏ½π‘π‘š after estimating equation (4).

We then estimate the second-stage equation (equation (3)), additionally controlling for

νœ€οΏ½Μ‚οΏ½π‘π‘š. Based on Wooldridge (2015), the estimates of 𝛽1 is consistent using this CF method.

Because νœ€οΏ½Μ‚οΏ½π‘π‘š is predicted in the first stage, the standard errors for the estimates in the

second stage are bootstrapped.

Our first stage estimate is shown in Table A2 of Appendix 4. We find that there is a

very strong first-stage effect, implying a takeup rate of roughly 80% among those made

eligible for the program. This estimate is very robust to varying the set of controls that are

included in the model.

Table 5 shows our mortality results. The first column shows our baseline hazard

without correcting for the endogeneity of NCMS enrollment.41 We find a significant

reduction in the hazard rate of dying of almost 50%. In the second column, we include the

control function to control for potential endogeneity of NCMS enrollment. Our estimate

falls to about 30%, suggesting positive selection into the NCMS program. This is consistent

with the fact that more educated, and therefore healthier, individuals were more informed

about the program in its early years, so they were the first to enroll. The estimate on the

first-stage residual is less than 1, which is consistent with the positive selection.

How does this result compare to our aggregate estimates? Given that one-year

mortality rate before NCMS in our sample is 0.163, a 30 % reduction in mortality hazard

40

Note that county fixed effects are implicitly included in the hazard specification through the use of a county-specific baseline hazard. 41

All estimates of the mortality hazard model are reported after taking exponential to represent proportional increases or decreases in mortality rates relative to one.

Page 26: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

26

indicates a 34% reduction in mortality rate after NCMS enrollment. 42 Considering the

average takeup rate of 80% of NCMS at the county level, our aggregate estimates suggest a

decrease of 24% in aggregate mortality rates for a county with 100 percent NCMS enrollees.

The CLHLS results show a larger mortality reduction among the elderly. This is consistent

with the fact that the elderly is more vulnerable to health-service amenable mortality than

the younger cohort and therefore benefit more from the health insurance expansion (Nolte

and McKee, 2012).

The rich data available in the CLHLS allow us to go beyond mortality to look at other

health outcomes as well. In particular, we have five other health outcome measures in a

sample of survivors. To do so, we move from our hazard framework to individual IV

methods at the individual level:

π‘Œπ‘–π‘π‘‘ = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑖𝑐𝑑 + π‘‹π‘–β€²π›½π‘˜ + 𝛿𝑐𝑑 + π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑑 + π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑐 + πœ–π‘–π‘π‘‘ ,

(5)

where π‘Œπ‘–π‘π‘‘ is a measure of health outcome of individual 𝑖 in county 𝑐 in wave 𝑑; and

𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑖𝑐𝑑 indicates that individual 𝑖 has enrolled in the NCMS in wave 𝑑. Because enrolling in

the NCMS is voluntary, 𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑖𝑐𝑑 is endogeneous in equation (5). We use the IV method to

address the endogeneity, and the first stage specification is:

𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑖𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑐𝑑 Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– + π‘‹π‘–β€²π›Όπ‘˜ + 𝛿𝑐𝑑 + π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑑 +

π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑐 + πœπ‘–π‘π‘‘. (6)

Compared equation (6) with (5), the excluded instrument for 𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑖𝑐𝑑 is the interaction

term between NCMS passage in that county and individual 𝑖's Hukou status (𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆𝑐𝑑 Γ—

42 Given the estimated hazard ratio of 0.694, we have

h(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘=1)

h(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘=0)= 0.694. Based on the

relationship between mortality hazard h(𝑑) and mortality rate𝐹(𝑑) in βˆ’ ln(1 βˆ’ 𝐹(𝑑)) = ∫ h(𝑒)𝑑𝑒 𝑑

0, we have

βˆ’ln(1βˆ’πΉ(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘=1)

βˆ’ln(1βˆ’πΉ(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘=0)=

∫ h(𝑒|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘=1)𝑑𝑒 𝑑0

∫ h(𝑒|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘=0)𝑑𝑒𝑑0

= 0.694. We then back out

𝐹(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘ = 1) since 𝐹(𝑑|𝑁𝐢𝑀𝑆 π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘‘ = 0) = 0.163 in our sample.

Page 27: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

27

π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘–). In both equations (5) and (6), the vector of covariates, 𝑋𝑖, includes dummies

for age, gender, minority status, household size, housing income per capita, drinking,

smoking, and an indicator of getting adequate medical service when in serious illness in

childhood. These covariates are held constant at their baseline values.

This is a very rich completely saturated model: we control for county-by-wave fixed

effects (𝛿𝑐𝑑) to account for unobserved time-varying characteristics that are specific to a

county, hukou-by-wave fixed effects (π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑑) to account for unobserved time-

varying characteristics that are specific to a hukou type, and hukou-by-county fixed effect

(π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’π‘– Γ— 𝛿𝑐) to control for unobserved time-invariant characteristics of individuals

with the same hukou type in a county. By including this full set of interactions in both the

first and second stages, we are running a triple-difference IV model.43 The standard errors

are clustered at the county level.

The first two outcomes are indicators for being seriously ill over the past two years

and for limited activities of daily living. The third variable is mental health, an indicator for a

positive state of mind. We also have two dummies of health status, one that is self-reported

and one that is interviewer reported. The two measures are correlated with a correlation

coefficient of 0.378.

The results for these other health measures are shown in the third column of Table

5, using our IV model. We find a significant reduction in the probability of being seriously ill

and limitations of activities of daily living, and a significant improvement in mental health;

these effects amount to 50% to 70% of the sample mean, in line with the one-third

reduction in the mortality hazard we observe in these data. The effects on both self-

43

Our estimation results remain robust when we additionally control for individual fixed effects, which are reported in Tables A3 - A5 in Appendix 5.

Page 28: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

28

reported health and reporter-reported health are significant, showing an effect which is

roughly 85% as large as the share of population not in good health.

To assess mechanisms, the final column of Table 5 extends our results to examine

several measures of health care utilization available in the CLHLS, continuing to control for

selection. The first is a dummy variable for respondents reporting that they received

"adequate medical service". Only 8% of the sample reports that they do not receive

adequate medical service, and this gap is closed under NCMS. We then show that the odds

of receiving any medical spending rises by 11.8 percentage points if individuals are covered

by NCMS, which is over 50% of the share of those who report not having positive medical

spending. Among those with spending, there is a 42% increase in spending. 44

The CLHLS data, therefore, usefully confirms our finding of significant mortality

reductions and shows that these are reflected in other measures as health as well.

Moreover, the results show a substantial increase in health care spending - consistent with

these improvements in health.

CHNS Results

The other micro-data set we use is the CNHS, which is a community-based survey of

225 communities from 54 counties in five waves from 2000 to 2011. We estimate models of

the same specification as equations (5) and (6). Due to data availability, the vector of

covariates includes gender, age, minority status, household size, years of schooling and

household income per capita, and a set of variables at the community level to measure

44

The CLHLS did not ask about the precise medical spending until wave 2005. Therefore, we use wave 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014 to do the analysis. Individuals pay the total costs of their medical care and are then reimbursed, allowing survey respondents to report their total spending.

Page 29: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

29

socioeconomic, transportation, and sanitation conditions. Standard errors are clustered at

the county level.

There are two key differences between the CLHLS and CHNS results to keep in mind

in comparing the results. First, the CLHLS data includes only older individuals, while the

CHNS includes the non-elderly as well. Second, the CLHLS measures medical utilization over

the past year, while the CHNS measures it only over the previous four weeks.

Table 6 presents our key results for the CHNS. In the first column, we examine other

measures of health outcomes. In particular, we focus on dummy variables for having a

cognitive deficit or limitations in activities of daily living, which are measured for those age

55+ only, and on having diabetes or hypertension, which are measured at all ages above 12.

We see significant and sizeable reductions in all health measures. The odds of a cognitive

deficit fall by almost half, while the odds of a limitation in activities of daily living falls by

more than half. There is a four-fifths reduction in the incidence of diabetes and a two-thirds

reduction in hypertension (albeit at very low full population means).

The second column examines measures of health care utilization. We find that

health care usage rises by 8.4 percentage points. This is composed of a 1.9 percentage

points rise in use of inpatient care and a 7.2 percentage points rise in outpatient care. The

survey also asks separately about receipt of preventive care, and this rises by 5.4 percentage

points. Total medical spending increases by 39% among those with positive spending. But

the estimate is not precise due to a relatively small sample size.

Therefore, both of these valuable micro-data surveys confirm the transformational

results of the NCMS program in a treatment-on-the-treated framework. There are dramatic

improvements in health care utilization, as well as improvements in health outcomes along

a wide variety of dimensions.

Page 30: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

30

Part VI: Mechanisms – OOP Spending, Supply Responses, and Ex-Ante Moral Hazard

The impressive effects of the NCMS raise the natural question of mechanisms of

response. One mechanism is the protection against out-of-pocket risk provided by

insurance, which increases utilization and improves health outcomes. Another mechanism

highlighted by Gruber et al. (2014) is the role of induced supply-side effects. By raising

demand for care, public programs can expand the supply of care available. The Chinese

context offers a potential multiplier effect for this channel through the simultaneous

liberalization of private investment in public health care facilities. Using the CHNS, we can

examine both potential explanations. Importantly, this survey includes not only individuals

surveyed in those communities but also a survey of all medical facilities in the communities,

including public hospitals, public clinics, and private clinics.45 This part of the survey is

answered by the government official who is in charge of the bureau of health at the

community level.

Out-of-Pocket Spending

Table 7 shows the impact of the NCMS on out-of-pocket medical costs, using our

treatment-on-the-treated framework in both the CLHLS and CHNS data. The first column

uses a dependent variable from a question asked in the CLHLS about whether the

respondent refuses any necessary medical service due to financial difficulty. We find a

highly significant reduction in this measure of 5.1 percentage points, which is 85% of the

population mean. Unfortunately, the CLHLS does not ask about out of pocket medical

spending, but the CHNS does.

45

The community module records a roster of all medical facilities available to the residents in the community, including facilities locating both inside and outside the community. We only consider the facilities locating inside the community in our analysis.

Page 31: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

31

The second column shows that, in fact, we find an insignificant effect on (the log of)

out-of-pocket spending. This is surprising given the insurance protection provided by the

program, but it also reflects the imprecision in our estimate. This is because only 330

persons in our data have out-of-pocket medical spending in the month before the survey,

both before and after the NCMS becomes available.

In addition, the drop in OOP costs is smaller than what might be expected since total

medical spending is rising so rapidly. The third column changes the dependent variable to

the ratio of OOP spending to total spending. This shows a significant reduction of 29

percentage points in the share of medical costs borne out of pocket.

Finally, the NCMS program is clearly reducing the risk of extreme levels of out-of-

pocket medical costs. Figure 5 shows the relationship between total medical spending and

OOP spending before and after enrollment in NCMS. Before the NCMS, there is an

essentially 1-1 correspondence between total spending and out of pocket spending. But

after NCMS, there estimated a positive relationship but much below 1, so that for those

with the highest total spending, they are bearing a much smaller share of spending in OOP

costs.

Supply Expansions

A different mechanism for our effects could be the expansion in supply. To examine

this, we model community-level provider supply, which is captured for all communities

included in the CHNS. We estimate difference-in-differences models similar to equation (1)

but at the community/wave level.

The dependent variable is the log of the number of facilities per 10,000 population.

We measure this separately for public hospitals and clinics, as well as for private clinics. As

Page 32: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

32

noted earlier, beginning in 2003, the private sector was allowed to invest in public health

facilities. Since the NCMS only reimbursed medical expenses in public facilities, these

facilities served more and more patients and thus were attractive to private-sector investor.

The model also includes community fixed effects, province-by-wave fixed effects,

NCMS timing-specific wave effects, and a community-specific linear trend, as well as the

time-varying measures that evaluate each community on the quality of economic outcomes

(e.g., daily wage), market outcomes (e.g., number of supermarkets), transportation

outcomes (e.g., distance to bus stop and train stop) and housing outcomes (e.g., access to

electricity and tap water). Regressions are weighted by community population and standard

errors are clustered at the county level. We also examine the log of the number of

healthcare staff/beds per 1,000 population using the same specification.

Panel A of Table 8 shows the results for a variety of supply measures. We find large

supply responses in aggregate. Compared with a community with no agricultural population,

a community with the median agricultural share in our sample (75%) experiences a 35% rise

in public hospitals and a 47% rise in public clinics. On the other hand, the number of private

clinics falls by 40%, which is consistent with the fact that the NCMS program only

reimburses public providers. The rise in total clinics is surprisingly modest, given the larger

increase in public clinics and the baseline higher level of those clinics; we explain this further

below. We also find a dramatic rise in the total number of healthcare workers practicing in

the area, and in the total number of beds available. This is a substantial response. Applied

to the entirety of China, this implies that by 2010, the NCMS resulted in over 4 thousand

Page 33: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

33

more public hospitals, 57 thousand more public clinics, and 24 thousand more total clinics

nationwide. 46

These striking results raise the concern that private investment decisions drove the

decisions of localities to adopt NCMS. To address this, in panel B of Table 8, we rerun the

regression specification to include the two-year lead of NCMS interacted with baseline share

of agricultural population in our supply equations. We see an insignificant coefficient,

suggesting that NCMS adoption was not following expansions of private capital.

This substantial response also raises the natural question: are the impressive health

benefits that we see driven, at least partially, by more access to medical facilities? It is

impossible to disentangle through our existing approach since we only have one instrument

(NCMS availability) and two mechanisms (OOP costs and supply increases). But we can

disentangle them to some extent by noting that the expansion of health care supply in

response to the NCMS was highly equalizing. This equalization is well expected due to two

reasons. First, in areas with lower initial supply, price elasticity of demand for medical

service is larger (Yi et al., 2021). Therefore, the policy triggers a more pronounced increase

in demand for healthcare and induces a larger increase from the supply side. Second, the

policy-induced increase in demand is shared between both existing and newly-established

facilities. Thus, there are more investment opportunities regarding new facilities in areas

with lower initial supply.

Panel C of Table 8 uses the same dependent variables as in the first row but include

two terms: our instrument and an interaction of that instrument with the ex-ante measure

46

Given the agricultural share of 72% nationwide in 2000, our estimates suggest an increase of 33% in the number of public hospitals (per 10,000), which is 0.12 based on the corresponding value of 0.09 in 2003. Considering the scaling of population growth, the increase in the number of public hospitals is over 4,000. Similarly, we can find an increase of over 57,000 in the number public clinics and over 24,000 in the number of clinics of all types.

Page 34: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

34

of the same supply. 47 The results strongly confirm the equalizing impact of the NCMS-

induced expansion, with the main effect rising and a strong negative interaction. In

particular, these findings help explain why our total clinics estimate in the first panel is so

small; there is clearly a strong correlation between total clinic expansion and baseline clinic

availability.

The magnitudes are economically sizable. Take public hospitals as an example.

Assuming a median share of the agricultural population, a community at the median of the

ex-ante supply experiences an increase in the number of public hospitals that is 28.4

percentage points higher than a community at the top quartile. 48 To more clearly interpret

this interaction, we present this calculation (increase at the median relative to the top

quartile) under the result.

This mean reversion in area supply potentially allows us to assess the role that

supply is playing in driving our utilization and outcome results. If the effects are driven

solely by increased access to a given supply, then they should be stronger in areas with

more initial supply but should not rise as supply grows. If, on the other hand, the results are

driven solely by the reform-induced expansion in supply, then we should see stronger

impacts in the areas where supply increased the most. Of course, both effects could be

present, so this means that our estimates understate the role of supply in driving outcomes.

To assess the role played by supply, we incorporate NCMS-induced supply increases

into our individual outcome regressions. That is, we add to equations (5) and (6) above a

measure of local supply, for each of our supply measures. Since supply is endogenous, we

47

The ex-ante supply is measured using the last wave of the CHNS before the NCMS is adopted in the given community. 48

Compared to a community at the top quartile of the ex-ante supply, a community at median has 57.7% less public hospitals before NCMS adoption (log of difference is 0.577). We then calculate the interaction effects arising from the difference of baseline supply are 28 percentage points (= 75 Γ— 0.656 Γ— 0.577).

Page 35: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

35

instrument supply by π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000 Γ— π΅π‘Žπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘–π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘™π‘¦ (the measure

included in Panel C of Table 8). We add as a control to the regression π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ—

π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000, to allow for other NCMS-induced effects on more agricultural areas; recall

that the existing model only controls for agricultural hukou (an individual measure)

interacted with survey wave, so this additional control captures any effects on the individual

arising from changes in generally more rural areas. We also include π΅π‘Žπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘–π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘™π‘¦ and

π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000 to control for other health-related factors that are varying with the initial

supply and share of agricultural population in the community.

The results of this regression are shown in Table 9. We show the results for four

different measures of supply (public hospitals, total clinics, healthcare workers and beds),

and for a set of outcome variables from Table 6. For each outcome variable, we show the IV

coefficients on π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ (which continues to be instrumented by π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ—

π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’) and 𝑆𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦.

The first panel shows the results for the healthcare use dummy. We find that for all

measures of health care supply, there is a positive coefficient on supply, consistent with

some of our finding being driven by the supply channel. But the estimate is imprecise. The

next four panels show results for our four health outcome measures in the CNHS. For

limited ADLs, we see a similar pattern to health care use – a generally significant coefficient

on enrollment, with a right-signed but insignificant coefficient on supply. For cognitive

deficit, however, the supply coefficient is wrong-signed. For diabetes and hypertension, the

coefficient is right-signed and of a more similar magnitude to the enrollment effect – but

now both the enrollment and supply effects are insignificant. Overall, these results are at

best suggestive that supply is playing a role in driving our responses.

Page 36: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

36

Ex-Ante Moral Hazard

Finally, we consider a potentially offsetting effect: ex-ante moral hazard: the fact

that medical spending is now more financially protective may lead individuals to take more

risks. As first laid out by Ehrlich and Becker (1972), this topic has fascinated health

economists for decades. And the results are consistent, with very few studies finding

evidence of ex-ante moral hazard. For example, recent evidence in Baicker et al. (2013)

shows no effect of randomized health insurance provision of activities such as smoking.

We assess the role of ex-ante moral hazard in our context by using data on drinking

and smoking from both the CLHLS and the CHNS. We re-estimate equation (5) with

dependent variables for any drinking or smoking, and for the log of the number of cigarettes

or the log of amount of alcohol in liang (50gm). The amount of daily consumption is only

available in the CHNS.

The results, shown in Table 10, suggest that in fact, there may be less smoking and

drinking among those enrolling in the NCMS, but the coefficient is not significant, as are

none of the remaining coefficients on the amount of consumption conditional on current

smokers and drinkers. We can certainly rule out large effects, allowing us to reject a rise in

the incidence of smoking or in the incidence of drinking.

Part VII: Conclusions

The rise of modern medicine in the developing world has brought with it the need to

address high medical costs relative to individual resources. A natural approach to

addressing these costs is through expanded public insurance systems. A variety of countries

around the world have introduced such systems in recent decades, with the most notable

Page 37: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

37

recent addition being the PM-JAY program in India which is ultimately designed to cover the

bottom 40% of the population, or almost 500 million persons.

The largest of these expansions in terms of persons covered is the NCMS program

introduced in rural China in 2003. Previous research on this program has delivered mixed

and generally muted evidence of success from this program, particularly in terms of health

outcomes. Our research using aggregate health data delivers a very different conclusion:

the NCMS was an unqualified success. The program saved more than one million lives per

year, explaining nearly four-fifths of the rise in life expectancy during its first eight years.

Moreover, the program was highly cost effective, with a cost per life saved well below

common benchmarks.

Given these striking results from aggregate data, we explore the leading sources of

health micro-data for China as well to confirm and extend our findings. We find from two

different surveys that the NCMS program induced major increases in health care utilization,

as well as improvements in a variety of other health measures, ranging from self-reported

health to activities of daily living and the incidence of disease.

Finally, we explore the mechanisms through which NCMS created these effects. We

show modest reductions in out-of-pocket costs overall, but very sizeable reductions at the

top of the spending distribution. And we show that the extra demand induced by NCMS,

along with liberalization of rules around private investments in the health care sector,

induced a massive increase in health care supply. Our results suggest that this increase in

supply had an effect on outcomes above and beyond the demand effect, but they are

imprecise.

The fact that this incredible health policy success has gone largely underappreciated

by the health policy community is striking and suggests the potential value of revisiting the

Page 38: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

38

impacts of major health expansions in the developing world. Indeed, these results are quite

consistent with findings for the health benefits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the U.S.,

where recent quasi-experimental studies find sizeable impacts on mortality.49 Comparable

well-identified studies across a broader set of nations could allow us to understand under

which conditions health insurance expansions can be most effective.

That said, there remain many questions to answer about the NCMS. In particular,

we were unable to convincingly disentangle the demand and demand-induced supply side

channels for health improvements, which would be critical for nations where market signals

due to demand expansions are not enough to call forth more supply. And there much more

to do to understand the heterogeneity of these effects, and how it depended on local

decisions of features such as the nature of outpatient coverage. Finally, as China urbanizes,

there are questions about the ongoing value of programs that are differentiated between

urban and rural areas; comparable analysis of the urban insurance expansion that began in

2008 would help inform this issue.

49

Miller et al. (2020); Goldin et al. (2021)

Page 39: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

39

Bibliography

Baicker, K., Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J. H., Newhouse, J. P., ... &

Finkelstein, A. N. (2013). The Oregon experimentβ€”effects of Medicaid on clinical

outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(18), 1713-1722.

Babiarz, K. S., Miller, G., Yi, H., Zhang, L., & Rozelle, S. (2010). New evidence on the impact of

China’s New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme and its implications for rural primary

healthcare: multivariate difference-in-difference analysis. Bmj, 341, c5617.

Bai, C. E., & Wu, B. (2014). Health insurance and consumption: evidence from China’s new

cooperative medical scheme. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(2), 450-469.

Blumenthal, D., & Hsiao, W. (2015). Lessons from the Eastβ€”China's rapidly evolving health care

system. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(14), 1281-1285.

Burns, L. R., & Liu, G. G. (Eds.). (2017). China's healthcare system and reform. Cambridge University

Press.

Chen, Y., & Jin, G. Z. (2012). Does health insurance coverage lead to better health and educational

outcomes? Evidence from rural China. Journal of health economics, 31(1), 1-14.

Cheng, L., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Shen, K., & Zeng, Y. (2015). The impact of health insurance on health

outcomes and spending of the elderly: evidence from China's new cooperative medical

scheme. Health economics, 24(6), 672-691.

Curtin, L. R., & Klein, R. J. (1995). Direct standardization (age-adjusted death rates): US Department

of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 6.

Du, L.,& Zhang, W. (2007) The Development on China's Health, No. 3, Social Science Academic

Press: Beijing, China.

Ehrlich, I., & Becker, G. S. (1972). Market insurance, self-insurance, and self-protection. Journal of

political economy, 80(4), 623-648.

Gertler, P., Locay, L., & Sanderson, W. (1987). Are user fees regressive?: The welfare implications of

health care financing proposals in Peru. Journal of econometrics, 36(1-2), 67-88.

Goldin, J., Lurie, I. Z., & McCubbin, J. (2021). Health insurance and mortality: Experimental evidence

from taxpayer outreach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136(1), 1-49.

Gruber, J., Hendren, N., & Townsend, R. M. (2014). The great equalizer: Health care access and

infant mortality in Thailand. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(1), 91-107.

Huang, W., & Zhang, C. (2020) The Power of Social Pensions: Evidence from China’s New Rural

Pension Scheme. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. (Forthcoming).

Lei, X., & Lin, W. (2009). The New Cooperative Medical Scheme in rural China: does more coverage

mean more service and better health? Health economics, 18(S2), S25-S46.

Liang, L., & Langenbrunner, J. C. (2013). The long march to universal coverage: lessons from China.

Litvack, J. I., & Bodart, C. (1993). User fees plus quality equals improved access to health care:

results of a field experiment in Cameroon. Social science & medicine, 37(3), 369-383.

Liu, K. (2016). Insuring against health shocks: Health insurance and household choices. Journal of

health economics, 46, 16-32.

Page 40: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

40

Liu, X., & Cao, H. (1992). China's cooperative medical system: Its historical transformations and the

trend of development. Journal of Public Health Policy, 13(4), 501-511.

Long, Q., Klemetti, R., Wang, Y., Tao, F., Yan, H., & Hemminki, E. (2012). High Caesarean section

rate in rural China: is it related to health insurance (New Co-operative Medical

Scheme)?.Social science & medicine, 75(4), 733-737.

Mao, Z. (2005). Pilot program of Ncms in China: system design and progress. Background paper for

the World Bank China Rural Health Study. World Bank Health. Nutrition and Population-China

Rural.

Milcent, C. (2018). Healthcare reform in China: From violence to digital healthcare. Springer.

Miller, Sarah, Norman Johnson, and Laura Wherry. β€œMedicaid and Mortality: New Evidence From

Linked Survey and Administrative Data.” December 17, 2020.

Nolte, E., & McKee, C. M. (2012). In amenable mortalityβ€”deaths avoidable through health careβ€”

progress in the US lags that of three European countries. Health Affairs, 31(9), 2114-2122.

Souteyrand, Y. P., Collard, V., Moatti, J. P., Grubb, I., & Guerma, T. (2008). Free care at the point of

service delivery: a key component for reaching universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment in

developing countries. Aids, 22, S161-S168.

State Council, 2002. "The Decision of the State Council on Strengthening Rural Healthcare." (in

Chinese)

Sun, X., Jackson, S., Carmichael, G., & Sleigh, A. C. (2009). Catastrophic medical payment and

financial protection in rural China: evidence from the New Cooperative Medical Scheme in

Shandong Province. Health economics, 18(1), 103-119.

Wagstaff, A., Lindelow, M., Jun, G., Ling, X., & Juncheng, Q. (2009). Extending health insurance to

the rural population: an impact evaluation of China's new cooperative medical

scheme. Journal of health economics, 28(1), 1-19.

Wagstaff, A. (2009). Reforming China's rural health system. World Bank Publications.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Control function methods in applied econometrics. Journal of Human

Resources, 50(2), 420-445.

You, X., & Kobayashi, Y. (2009). The new cooperative medical scheme in China. Health policy, 91(1),

1-9.

Yi, J., Zhao, S. & Zou, H. (2021). Estimating an Equilibrium Model of Health Insurance and Healthcare

Expenditure. Working paper.

Zhou, M., Liu, S., Kate Bundorf, M., Eggleston, K., & Zhou, S. (2017). Mortality in rural China declined

as health insurance coverage increased, but no evidence the two are linked. Health

Affairs, 36(9), 1672-1678.

ZombrΓ©, D., De Allegri, M., & Ridde, V. (2017). Immediate and sustained effects of user fee

exemption on healthcare utilization among children under five in Burkina Faso: a controlled

interrupted time-series analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 179, 27-35.

Page 41: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

41

Figure 1. NCMS Rollout

Notes: This figure plots the fraction of counties implementing the NCMS over time. The number of NCMS

counties is obtained from 2005 -2011 China Health Statistical Yearbook and the total number of counties from

2011 China Civil Affairs' Statistical Yearbook.

Page 42: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

42

Figure 2. Distribution of the share of agricultural hukou out of the population

Note: This figure plots the distribution of the share of population with an agricultural hukou from China's 2000

Population Census.

Page 43: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

43

Panel A. Mortality rate

Panel B. Life expectancy at birth

Figure 3. Mortality rate and Life expectancy around NCMS adoption: subsamples by agricultural share

Notes: This figure plots the average value of the residuals from regressing Mortality rate (Panel A) and Life

expectancy (Panel B) on NCMS-timing-by-year FE and county-specific linear trend. Counties in the sample are

split by the median value of the share of population with an agricultural hukou. Observations more than 3

years (5 years) before (after) the NCMS are binned into groups. Sample period is from 2004 to 2010.

Page 44: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

44

Panel A. Mortality rate

Panel B. Life expectancy at birth

Figure 4. Mortality rate and Life expectancy around NCMS adoption

Notes: This figure plots the estimated coefficients on the interactions between year-to-NCMS dummies and

2000 agricultural share from the regression model specified in equation (2). The year before NCMS adoption is

omitted, so the estimates are normalized to zero in that year. Observations more than 3 years (5 years) before

(after) the NCMS are binned into groups. Results are weighted by county population. Sample period is from

2004 to 2010. The dashed lines represent the 95 percent confidence intervals based on standard errors

clustered at the county level.

Page 45: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

45

Figure 5. OOP spending vs. Total spending by NCMS enrollment

Notes: This figure plots the OOP spending against the total spending from the CHNS. The sample is restricted

to those with positive medical spending both before and after enrolling in the NCMS.

Page 46: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

46

Table 1. Summary of public health insurance programs in developing countries

Year Country Name of Insurance Scheme Number of People (year)

1990 Brazil Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) 200 million (2018)

1992 Vietnam Social Health Insurance 80 million (2018)

1993 Colombia Regimen Subsidiado (SR) 34 million (2016)

1995 Philippines Philippines Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) up to 104 million (2018)

1999 Rwanda Mutuelles de SantΓ© 12 million (2018)

2002 Thailand Universal Coverage Health Scheme (UCS) 53 million (2018)

2003 China New (Rural) Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS or NRCMS) 670 million (2015)

2005 Ghana National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) 11 million (2014)

2018 India Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogaya Yojana (PM-JAY) 103 million (2019)

Notes: Authors review of material on developing country health insurance expansions. Data sources listed in Appendix 1. For the Philippines, there is larger controversy over the reach of the program, so we list an upper bound here.

Page 47: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

47

Table 2. Summary statistics of DSP data

DSP sample National statistics

Mean S.D. Obs

Age-adjusted mortality rate 546.298 126.882 847 568

Life expectancy at birth 75.325 3.642 847 74

Share of Agricultural population in 2000 0.707 0.254 121 0.7

GDP per capita 22,663 14945 847 22,072

Wage 26,705 10851 847 27,102

Notes: a. DSP sample: Age-adjusted death rate is measured as the number of deaths per 100 thousand people. The age adjustment is based on the China's 2000 Population Census. Share of agricultural population in 2000 is obtained from China's 2000 Population Census. GDP per capita and wage are obtained from China City Statistical Yearbook 2005-2011 and measured in 2010 RMB. The statistics are weighted by the county population. b. National statistics: Mortality rate and life expectancy at birth are statistics in 2007, calculated using the China's 2000 and 2010 Population Census. Share of agricultural population in 2000 is obtained from China's 2000 Population Census. GDP per capita and wage are the average values over 2004 through 2010 and measured in 2010 RMB, obtained from 2011 China Statistical Yearbook.

Page 48: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

48

Table 3. Summary statistics of the main variables from the CLHLS and the CHNS

Mean S.D. Obs

Panel A: CLHLS individual sample

Health outcomes Suffering from serious illness (past two years, Dummy) 0.183 0.387 53,224

Limited activities of daily living (ADL) (Dummy) 0.252 0.434 53,224

Mental health (Dummy) 0.228 0.419 53,224

Self-reported health (Dummy) 0.853 0.354 53,224

Interviewer-reported health (Dummy) 0.862 0.345 53,224

Healthcare utilization Adequate medical service (at present, Dummy) 0.920 0.271 58,565

Positive medical spending (the previous year, Dummy) 0.791 0.406 31,378

Total medical spending (the previous year, 1,000 RMB) 2.733 6.064 24,832

Financial difficulty in getting medical service (at present, Dummy) 0.059 0.236 52,046

Health behaviours Smoking (Dummy) 0.177 0.382 58,589

Alcohol consumption (Dummy) 0.191 0.393 58,589

Panel B: CHNS individual sample

Health outcomes

Cognitive deficit (Dummy) 0.509 0.500 5,942

Limited activities of daily living (ADL) (Dummy) 0.333 0.471 5,942

Diabetes (Dummy) 0.019 0.137 41,491

Hypertension (Dummy) 0.093 0.290 41,491

Healthcare utilization Healthcare use (past 4 weeks, Dummy) 0.109 0.311 46,519

Inpatient care use (past 4 weeks, Dummy) 0.009 0.096 46,519

Outpatient care use (past 4 weeks, Dummy) 0.095 0.293 46,519

Preventive care use (past 4 weeks, Dummy) 0.037 0.190 46,519

Total medical spending (past 4 weeks, 1,000 RMB) 1.537 6.546 4,005

Out-of-pocket spending (past 4 weeks, 1,000 RMB) 1.112 3.807 680

Out-of-pocket /Total spending (past 4 weeks) 0.952 0.168 680

Health behaviours Smoking (Dummy) 0.241 0.428 40,909

# Cigarettes per day 16.183 9.079 9,624

Alcohol consumption (Dummy) 0.289 0.454 40,909

Consumption of alcohol per day (liang, 50mg) 1.551 1.979 10,888

Panel C. CHNS community sample

# Public hospitals (per 10,000 people) 0.543 1.329 790

# Public clinics (per 10,000 people) 1.119 2.499 790

# Private clinics (per 10,000 people) 0.343 1.412 790

# Clinic (per 10,000 people) 1.462 2.803 790

# Healthcare staff in medical facilities (per 1,000 people) 4.921 15.819 790

# Beds in medical facilities (per 1,000 people) 5.006 14.922 790

Page 49: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

49

Notes: This table reports the summary statistics of the main variables from the CLHLS and the CHNS. Panel A and Panel B show the individual-level health outcomes, healthcare utilization, and health behaviors from the CLHLS and the CHNS, respectively. The monetary values are measured in 2010 RMB. Panel C summarizes variables used in the analysis of community healthcare supply from the CHNS, weighted by community population.

Page 50: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

50

Table 4. Impacts of NCMS adoption on aggregate mortality

Baseline Removing covariates Sample from 2004 to 2007 Placebo test

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Age-adjusted

Mortality Rate Life

Expectancy Age-adjusted

Mortality Rate Life

Expectancy Age-adjusted

Mortality Rate Life

Expectancy Age-adjusted

Mortality Rate Life

Expectancy

Post NCMS Γ— AgriShare2000 -0.195** 0.040** -0.196** 0.040*** -0.254** 0.051** -0.007 0.003

(0.082) (0.015) (0.081) (0.015) (0.120) (0.026) (0.204) (0.036)

County FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Province-by-year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NCMS-timing-by-year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

County-specific linear trend Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Covariates Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Obs 847 847 847 847 484 484 704 704

Adjusted R-squared 0.758 0.705 0.758 0.705 0.735 0.634 0.765 0.712

Mean 546.298 75.325 546.298 75.325 550.041 75.271 836.383 70.798

Notes: This table shows the estimated coefficients from equation (1) in various specifications. Columns (1) and (2) report the baseline results from equation (1) using DSP sample from 2004 to 2010. Columns (3) and (4) report results from specifications removing economic covariates. Columns (5) and (6) restrict the sample period to 2004 -2007. Columns (7) and (8) report the results from a placebo test using the sample from 1994 to 2000. Age-adjusted mortality rate and life expectancy are in logarithm. Results are weighted by county population. Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 51: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

51

Table 5. Impacts of NCMS enrollment on health outcomes and healthcare utilization using CLHLS

Mortality hazard Other health outcomes Healthcare Utilization

(1) (2) (3)

(4) Baseline Control function

NCMS enrollment 0.554*** 0.694***

(0.025) (0.062)

1st

-stage Residuals

0.775***

(0.069)

Obs 78,446 78,446

Suffering from serious illness

-0.129**

(0.063)

Obs

53,224 Mean

0.183

Limited ADL

-0.125**

(0.063)

Obs

53,224 Mean

0.252

Mental health

0.111**

(0.054)

Obs

53,224 Mean

0.228

Self-reported health

0.123**

(0.051)

Obs

53,224 Mean

0.853

Interviewer-reported health

0.122**

(0.050)

Obs

53,224 Mean

0.862

Adequate medical service

0.089**

(0.043)

Obs

58,565

Mean

0.920

Positive medical spending

0.118*

(0.067)

Obs

31,378

Mean

0.791

Total medical spending (log)

0.418*

(0.222)

Page 52: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

52

Obs

24,832

Mean 2733.296

Year FE Yes Yes No No

County stratification Yes Yes No No

Covariates Yes Yes Yes Yes

County-by-wave FE No No Yes Yes

Hukou-by-wave FE No No Yes Yes

Hukou-by-County FE No No Yes Yes

Notes: This table reports the estimation results from equations (3) - (6) using the CLHLS. Column (1) shows how NCMS enrollment is related to one's mortality hazard based on equation (3). Column (2) presents the results from the control function method, with π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’ as an instrument. All estimates are reported after taking exponential to represent proportional increases or decreases in mortality rates relative to one. Standard errors in parentheses are computed based on 1,000 bootstraps and converted via the delta method. Columns (3) and (4) report the results on other health outcomes and healthcare utilization in the sample of survivors. Each cell presents the IV coefficients on π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ based on equations (5) and (6). Dependent variables in these regressions are shown in the first column. Information on medical spending is available after 2005. Monetary values are in 2010 RMB. Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 53: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

53

Table 6. Impacts of NCMS enrollment on health outcomes and healthcare utilization using CHNS

(1) (2) (3)

Health outcomes Healthcare utilization Medical spending

Cognitive Deficit -0.220*

(0.126)

Obs 5,942

Mean 0.509

Limited ADL -0.257**

(0.128)

Obs 5,942

Mean 0.333

Diabetes -0.015*

(0.009)

Obs 41,491

Mean 0.019

Hypertension -0.065**

(0.030)

Obs 41,491

Mean 0.093

Healthcare use 0.084**

(0.040)

Obs 46,519

Mean 0.109

Inpatient care 0.019*

(0.010)

Obs 46,519

Mean 0.009

Outpatient care 0.072**

(0.035)

Obs 46,519

Mean 0.095

Preventive care 0.054**

(0.026)

Obs 46,519

Mean 0.037

Total medical spending (log) 0.387

(0.638)

Obs 4,005

Mean 1537.011

Page 54: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

54

Covariates Yes Yes Yes

County-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-County FE Yes Yes Yes

Notes: This table shows the results about health outcomes, healthcare utilization and medical spending from CHNS. Each cell presents the IV coefficients on NCMS enrollment based on equations (5) and (6). Dependent variables in these regressions are shown in the first column. πΏπ‘–π‘šπ‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘‘π΄π·πΏ and πΆπ‘œπ‘”π‘›π‘–π‘‘π‘–π‘£π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘“π‘–π‘π‘–π‘‘are measured for those age 55+ only and the information is available in waves 2000 - 2006. π·π‘–π‘Žπ‘π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘  and π»π‘¦π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘’π‘›π‘ π‘–π‘œπ‘› are measured at all ages above 12. Sample in Column (3) is restricted to those with positive medical spending. Monetary values are in 2010 RMB. Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 55: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

55

Table 7. Impacts of the NCMS on financial protection

(1) (2) (3)

Financial difficulty Log (OOP spending) OOP/Total spending

NCMS enrollment -0.051** -0.429 -0.289**

(0.026) (1.163) (0.135)

Covariates Yes Yes Yes

County-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-County FE Yes Yes Yes

Obs 52,046 680 680

Mean 0.059 1112.364 0.952

Notes: This table reports the estimation results from equations (5) and (6) and the dependent variables are shown in the first row. Column (1) uses the CLHLS sample and πΉπ‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘›π‘π‘–π‘Žπ‘™π‘‘π‘–π‘“π‘“π‘–π‘π‘’π‘™π‘‘π‘¦ is an indicator for not seeking any medical service due to lack of money. This information is available after 2000. Columns (2) and (3) use the CHNS sample and the sample is restricted to those with positive OOP spending both before and after the NCMS initiation in their communities. Monetary values are in 2010 RMB. Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 56: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

56

Table 8. Healthcare supply

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Public hospitals Public clinics Private clinics Clinics Healthcare workers Beds

Panel A. NCMS effects on healthcare supply (log)

Post NCMS Γ— AgriShare2000 0.461*** 0.620*** -0.528** 0.081 1.031** 0.819**

(0.159) (0.232) (0.249) (0.284) (0.405) (0.389)

Panel B. Controlling for lead NCMS

Post NCMS Γ— AgriShare2000 0.454*** 0.618** -0.514** 0.092 1.041** 0.808*

(0.162) (0.245) (0.253) (0.285) (0.422) (0.408)

Post NCMS (2-yr lead) Γ— AgriShare2000 0.050 0.017 -0.091 -0.078 -0.066 0.077

(0.183) (0.247) (0.208) (0.262) (0.455) (0.455)

Panel C. Interaction effects with baseline supply (log)

Post NCMS Γ— AgriShare2000 0.673*** 1.451*** -0.121 1.070*** 1.855*** 1.444***

(0.147) (0.285) (0.199) (0.342) (0.435) (0.400)

Post NCMS Γ— AgriShare2000 Γ— Baseline supply (log) -0.656*** -0.844*** -1.470*** -0.792*** -0.916*** -0.874***

(0.245) (0.177) (0.202) (0.171) (0.210) (0.244)

P50 vs. P75 of baseline supply (percentage points) 28 114 65 45 68 76

Obs 790 790 790 790 790 790

Mean 0.543 1.119 0.343 1.462 4.921 5.006

Notes: This table presents the results about the supply-side response to NCMS using the CHNS. Dependent variables are shown in the first row. The number of hospitals and clinics are measured as the number per 10,000 people. The number of healthcare staff and beds are measured as the number per 1,000 people. All supply measures are in logarithm. Panel A shows the estimated coefficients on π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000, Panel B includes the two-year lead of NCMS interacted with π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000, and Panel C includes the interactions of π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† Γ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000with the same supply in the first row. 𝑃50𝑣𝑠. 𝑃75 (Baseline supply) shows the differences in the percentage changes of supply for communities at the median of baseline supply relative to those at the top quartile, assuming a median share of agricultural population (0.75). Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 57: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

57

Table 9. Impacts of healthcare supply on healthcare utilization and health outcomes

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Public hospitals Clinics

Healthcare workers

Beds

Panel A. Healthcare use NCMS enrollment 0.118* 0.110* 0.132* 0.116*

(0.063) (0.063) (0.069) (0.069)

Healthcare supply (log) 0.029 0.032 0.029 0.029

(0.023) (0.031) (0.019) (0.036)

Obs 41,335 41,335 41,335 41,335

Mean 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092

Panel B. Limited ADL NCMS enrollment -0.378 -0.351 -0.572 -0.534

(0.295) (0.230) (0.654) (0.994)

Healthcare supply (log) -0.065 -0.089 -0.170 -0.179

(0.231) (0.137) (0.341) (0.783)

Obs 4,671 4,671 4,671 4,671

Mean 0.335 0.335 0.335 0.335

Panel C. Cognitive Deficit NCMS enrollment -0.478 -0.591** -0.595 -1.264

(0.426) (0.243) (0.514) (2.288)

Healthcare supply (log) 0.165 0.030 0.013 -0.502

(0.319) (0.125) (0.236) (1.759)

Obs 4,671 4,671 4,671 4,671

Mean 0.534 0.534 0.534 0.534

Panel D. Diabetes NCMS enrollment -0.036 -0.002 -0.037 -0.037

(0.035) (0.049) (0.035) (0.037)

Healthcare supply (log) -0.008 -0.029 -0.005 -0.007

(0.014) (0.023) (0.009) (0.019)

Obs 36,517 36,517 36,517 36,517

Mean 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018

Panel E. Hypertension NCMS enrollment -0.062 -0.010 -0.072 -0.093

(0.055) (0.074) (0.064) (0.117)

Healthcare supply (log) -0.017 -0.040 -0.024 -0.067

(0.026) (0.033) (0.022) (0.079)

Obs 36,517 36,517 36,517 36,517

Mean 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092

Covariates Yes Yes Yes Yes

County-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-County FE Yes Yes Yes Yes

Page 58: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

58

Notes: This table shows the results of how NCMS enrollment and local healthcare supply affects individuals' healthcare utilization and health outcomes. We re-estimate equations (5) and (6), additionally including local supply (log) shown in the first row. We instrument π‘πΆπ‘€π‘†π‘’π‘›π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ and π»π‘’π‘Žπ‘™π‘‘β„Žπ‘π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘™π‘¦(π‘™π‘œπ‘”) with π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† βˆ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π»π‘’π‘˜π‘œπ‘’, and π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† βˆ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000 βˆ— π΅π‘Žπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘–π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘™π‘¦(π‘™π‘œπ‘”) as shown in the first row. In addition to controls in equations (5) and (6), we also control for π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘ π‘‘π‘πΆπ‘€π‘† βˆ— π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000, π΅π‘Žπ‘ π‘’π‘™π‘–π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘’π‘π‘π‘™π‘¦(π‘™π‘œπ‘”), and π΄π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘†β„Žπ‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’2000. Each panel shows the IV estimates on NCMS enrollment and healthcare supply for different outcome measures. Standard errors clustered at the county level are in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Page 59: The Largest Insurance Program in History: Saving One

59

Table 10. Ex-ante moral hazard: smoking and alcohol consumption

CLHLS sample CHNS sample

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Smoking Drinking Smoking # cigarettes (log) Drinking Amount alcohol (log)

NCMS enrollment -0.029 0.011 -0.057 0.098 -0.054 -0.172

(0.034) (0.046) (0.035) (0.141) (0.044) (0.228)

Covariates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

County-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-wave FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hukou-by-County FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Obs 58,589 58,589 40,909 9,624 40,909 10,888

Mean 0.177 0.191 0.241 16.183 0.289 1.551

Notes: This table shows the impacts of the NCMS on smoking and alcohol consumption based on equations (4). Results in Columns (1) and (2) rely on the CLHLS, and results in Columns (3) - (6) rely on the CHNS and restricted to age above 12. Dependent variables are in the first row. Standard errors clustered at the county in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.