1. Evaluation of health policy effects Source: Analysis of Health and Welfare Surveys (HWS, various years) 1. UC implemented Oct 01 2. SS extended Apr 02 3. UC-copay abolished 4. CS-direct billing Oct 06 Evaluation period

2. Estimation of effect of policy intervention Difference-in-difference (DID) approach UC Uninsured/ LIC/VHC CS Before policy After policy Use of district hospital Counter-factual 1.2 Post-only difference 1.1 Baseline difference 2.1 CS trend 2.2 UC trend Policy effect

3. Private clinic/hosp District hospital Other Govt. hosp Year 2001 vs. 1996-0.093***0.220***0.555*** Year 2003 vs. 19960.0100.659***0.261*** Year 2004 vs. 19960.224***0.673***0.319*** Year 2005 vs. 19960.098**0.643***0.296*** Uninsured/LIC/VHC/UC vs. CS -0.181***0.131***-0.507*** SS vs. CS0.293***-0.050-0.591*** 2001-UC reform0.0580.165***-0.291*** 2002-SS extension0.210***-0.0320.134 *** P < 0.01; logistic regression coefficients, adjusted for gender, age, education, employment, occupation, urban-rural areas, and provincial indicators Policy effects on the use of formal health care services Analysis of HWS 1996-2005

4. Health and Welfare Survey -HWS 19962001200320042005200620072009 Sample size (# of HH members)79,613222,47068,843368,10967,81574,05769,67973,087 A. Dependent variable 1.1 Presence of non-hosp. illness√√√√√√√√ 1.2 Absence of any care for last illness√√√√√√√√ 1.3 Informal, private, public use (last illness)√√√√√√√√ 1.4 Payment for last non-hospitalized careNo √√√√√√ 2.1 Presence of hospitalization√√√√√√√√ 2.2 Private, public use (last hospitalization)√√√√√√√√ 2.3 Last hospital days√√√√√√√√ 2.4 Last hospitalization payment√√√√√√√√ B. Independent variable Health insurance entitled√√√√√√√√ C. Covariates 1. Gender√√√√√√√√ 2. Age√√√√√√√√ 3. Education level√√√√√√√√ 4. Work status√√√√√√√√ 5. Occupation 5.1 Household income per equivalent adultNo√√√√√√√ 5.2 Household asset indexNo √√√√√√ 6. Household size√√√√√√√√ 7. Urban-rural areas√√√√√√√√ 8. Province and region indicators√√√√√√√√