Analysis compares net benefits of universal health coverage for people with disabilities and others, suggesting disparities in financial protection.
Background Many countries are moving toward universal health coverage (UHC), but no studies have specifically investigated whether people with disabilities in Taiwan have sufficient financial protection under UHC. This study analyzed the net benefit to people with disabilities under Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) and compared them with those to people without disabilities. Methods Taiwan’s national disability registry and NHI claims data from 2014–2021 were used. People with disabilities (n = 933,304) were matched to people without disabilities at a ratio of 1:1. Net benefit was defined as the difference in the total expense (premium plus copayment) to the individual and the total value of medical care received under the NHI. Disability was classified as very severe, severe, moderate, or mild. A two-part model was used to determine factors associated with the net benefit received by people with disabilities. Results People with disabilities had significantly higher utilization of outpatient, inpatient, Chinese medicine, and emergency room services, both in terms of the number of visits and expenditure, than did people without disabilities (all P < 0.001). Among those with mild disabilities, the average net benefit was 62,189 (standard deviation [SD] = 254,684) NTD, whereas among those with very severe disabilities, the average net benefit was 461,346 (SD = 557,823) NTD. By comparison, people without disabilities had an average net benefit of 19,969 (SD = 104,351) NTD. However, copayment by People with disabilities was greater than that by non-disabled individuals. Furthermore, regression results showed that income was associated with net benefits under the NHI. Conclusion Taiwan’s NHI may provide some protection to people with disabilities. However, people with disabilities can be required to pay high copayments, and the redistribution effect of the NHI varies by socioeconomic group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: