scholarly journals 022: IMPACT OF EXTENDING SOCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR ON FACILITY-BASED DELIVERIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Author(s):  
Karlo Paolo P Paredes
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeraj Sood ◽  
Zachary Wagner

Life-saving technology used to treat catastrophic illnesses such as heart disease and cancer is often out of reach for the poor. As life expectancy increases in poor countries and the burden from chronic illnesses continues to rise, so will the unmet need for expensive tertiary care. Understanding how best to increase access to and reduce the financial burden of expensive tertiary care is a crucial task for the global health community in the coming decades. In 2010, Karnataka, a state in India, rolled out the Vajpayee Arogyashree scheme (VAS), a social health insurance scheme focused on increasing access to tertiary care for households below the poverty line. VAS was rolled out in a way that allowed for robust evaluation of its causal effects and several studies have examined various impacts of the scheme on poor households. In this analysis article, we summarise the key findings and assess how these findings can be used to inform other social health insurance schemes. First, the evidence suggests that VAS led to a substantial reduction in mortality driven by increased tertiary care utilisation as well as use of better quality facilities and earlier diagnosis. Second, VAS significantly reduced the financial burden of receiving tertiary care. Third, these benefits of social health insurance were achieved at a reasonable cost to society and taxpayers. Several unique features of VAS led to its success at improving health and financial well-being including effective outreach via health camps, targeting expensive conditions with high disease burden, easy enrolment process, cashless treatment, bundled payment for hospital services, participation of both public and private hospitals and prior authorisation to improve appropriateness of care.


Author(s):  
Winnie Yip

Important health system challenges in the east and southeast Asian countries/territories of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia exist. The most commonly adopted health system among these areas is social health insurance. The high-income, aging societies of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have adopted single-payer/single-pipe systems with a single uniform benefit package and a single fee schedule for paying providers for services included in the benefit package. All three have achieved universal coverage with relatively equitable access to affordable care. All grapple with overutilization, aging populations, and hospital-centric and curative-focused care that is ill-suited for addressing an increasing chronic disease burden. Rising patient expectations and demand for expensive technologies contribute to rising costs. Korea also faces comparatively poorer financial risk protection. China, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines have also adopted social health insurance, though not single-payer systems. China and Thailand have established noncontributory schemes, whereby the government heavily subsidizes poor and non-poor populations. General tax revenue is used to extend coverage to those outside formal-sector employment. Both countries use multiple, unintegrated schemes to cover their populations. Thailand has improved access to care and financial risk protection. While China has improved insurance coverage, financial risk protection gains have been limited due to low levels of service coverage, fee-for-service payment systems, poor gatekeeping, and the fee schedule that incentivizes overprescription of tests and medicine. Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines use contributory schemes. Government revenue provides insurance coverage for the poor, near-poor, and selected vulnerable populations; the rest of the population must contribute to enroll. Therefore, expanding insurance coverage to the informal sector has been a significant challenge. Instead of social health insurance, Hong Kong and Malaysia have two-tiered health systems where the public sector is financed by general tax revenue and the private sector is financed primarily by out-of-pocket payments and limited private insurance. There is universal access to care; free or subsidized, good-quality public-sector services provide financial risk protection. However, Hong Kong and Malaysia have fragmented delivery systems, weak primary care, budgetary strains, and inequitable access to private care (which may offer shorter wait times and better perceived quality). Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar’s health systems feature high out-of-pocket spending, low government investment in health, and reliance on external aid. User fees, low insurance coverage, unequal distribution of health services, and fragmented financing pose pressing challenges to achieving equitable access and adequate financial risk protection. These countries/territories are diverse in terms of demographics, epidemiological profiles, and stages of economic development, and thus they face different health system challenges and opportunities. This diversity also suggests that these nations/territories will utilize different types of health systems to achieve universal health coverage, whereby all people have equitable access to affordable, good-quality care with adequate financial risk protection.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ama Pokuaa Fenny ◽  
Robert Yates ◽  
Rachel Thompson

Author(s):  
Badru Bukenya ◽  
Sam Hickey

The success of efforts to promote social protection in Uganda since the early 2000s has varied considerably, with cash transfers progressing much further than social health insurance. Using original primary research and a process-tracing methodology, we show that external actors were able to form a coherent policy coalition around cast transfers and promote them in ways that became aligned with the dominant ideas and incentives of powerful actors within Uganda’s political settlement. In contrast, proponents of health insurance struggled to mobilize a coalition capable of overcoming actors with greater holding power, particularly the President and private sector actors. Whereas ‘just giving money to the poor’ fits with Uganda’s increasingly personalized-populist political settlement, the hard work of building a credible health system, and formally requiring citizens to contribute to their own healthcare, requires a commitment and capacity to promoting a new social contract that seems to be lacking in Uganda.


2006 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 3177-3185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad Obermann ◽  
Matthew R. Jowett ◽  
Maria Ofelia O. Alcantara ◽  
Eduardo P. Banzon ◽  
Claude Bodart

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document