论文部分内容阅读
目的在饮用水和环境卫生监测项目中央转移支付经费分配权由中央转移到各省的第一年,综合评估资金分配的公平性。方法收集2016年各省疾控中心获得的用于饮用水和环境卫生监测的中央转移支付经费、省级配套经费额度,选择各省人均GDP、肠道传染病发病率、儿科门急诊人次数、各监测任务点数作为综合需求的影响因素,使用Pearson相关分析检验综合需求与中央经费投入的相关性,使用Fisher确切概率法比较是否获得中央转移支付经费与省级配套经费的有无。结果 29个省疾控中心反馈了结果,应答率93.55%。各省分配给饮用水水质监测、农村环境卫生监测和空气污染对人群健康影响3个任务的中央转移支付经费分别为19070.0万、1474.53万和6463.21万,降幅分别为45.65%、36.67%和32.67%。饮用水水质监测的中央经费数量与综合需求有相关性(r=0.396,P=0.034),而农村环境卫生监测和空气污染对人群健康影响项目则没有相关性(r分别为0.186和-0.095,P分别为0.334和0.639)。各监测任务是否有中央转移支付经费与能否获得省级配套经费之间均无差异性(χ~2分别为0.633、0.553和1.000,P值分别为0.424、0.283和0.545)。结论采用“因素法”后,全国范围用于饮用水和环境卫生监测的中央经费减少,在各地区分配公平性有待提高,建议加强饮用水和环境卫生工作的成本效益分析,各级监测工作领导部门加强与经费分配者的沟通。
Objective To assess the fairness of the distribution of funds in the first year of transfer of funds allocated by the central government to the central provinces for drinking water and sanitation monitoring projects. Methods Collect the central transfer payment for drinking water and sanitation monitoring collected by provincial CDC in 2016, the provincial matching quotas, the per capita GDP of each province, the incidence of intestinal infectious diseases, the number of pediatric emergency patients and the monitoring As the influencing factors of the comprehensive demand, Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the correlation between the comprehensive demand and the central government funding. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the availability of the central government transfer payment with the provincial funding. Results 29 provincial CDC feedback the results, the response rate of 93.55%. The central government allocated 3 million yuan, 14.7453 million yuan and 64.6331 million yuan respectively to the three tasks of drinking water quality monitoring, rural environmental health monitoring and air pollution on human health. The declines were 45.65%, 36.67% and 32.67% respectively. There was no correlation between the central government funding for drinking water quality monitoring and the overall demand (r = 0.396, P = 0.034), while the rural environmental health monitoring and air pollution were not related to the health effects of the population (r = 0.186 and -0.095, P = 0.334 and 0.639, respectively). There was no difference between the central government transfer payment and the availability of provincial matching funds for each monitoring task (χ ~ 2, 0.633, 0.553 and 1.000, respectively, P = 0.424, 0.283 and 0.545, respectively). Conclusion After the adoption of the “factor method”, the central government funds for drinking water and sanitation monitoring in the whole country have been reduced. The fairness in distribution needs to be improved in all regions. It is suggested that a cost-benefit analysis on strengthening drinking water and sanitation should be strengthened and monitoring at all levels The work leadership department should strengthen communication with the fund distributors.