UHC Forward: Towards Universal Health Coverage

Taiwan has a market-driven health care delivery system with a mix of publicly and privately owned hospitals. The National Health Insurance (NHI) program provides medical services to the insured population through contracts between the Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI) and providers, including hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, medical laboratories, and home nursing care. For hospitals and dental clinics, the contracted rate is 98% of all health facilities in Taiwan, suggesting that the contract serves as a comprehensive and inclusive network for consumers to access providers’ services. The contracted rate of clinics for both Western medicine and Chinese medicine are in the range of 84 to 90%. The broad and inclusive range of institutions that contract with NHI allows patients to see almost any doctor within the country.

Most health providers operate in the private sector and form a competitive market. Citizens have almost complete freedom of choice among providers and therapies. There is no rationing of care, no referral system, and patients are also allowed to seek out care at tertiary institutions regardless of the severity or nature of their illness. This has allowed patients large degrees of freedom in provider choice. However, doctors who practice in private clinics do not have hospital admitting privileges, thus hospitals have developed large outpatient departments and affiliated clinics for primary care, to maintain inpatient flows. Many private clinics also maintain about a dozen beds for their patients. One criticism of this system is that its delivery system is somewhat fragmented, because private physicians can practice, but have no hospital admitting privileges. This occasionally results in duplicative facilities and equipment, and can disrupt continuity of care.

Table 1: Health Service Delivery System in Taiwan, 2004

Source: Health Statistics (2006)

In total, there are about 5.7 beds per thousand people, 35% of which are public and 65% are private. In 2000, about 86% of hospitals were privately owned. Doctors in Taiwan are either salaried staff physicians in the hospitals or self-employed owners of clinics. A majority of clinics, about 97%, are privately owned. About 63% of physicians are employed by hospitals and paid on a salaried basis and the remaining 36% of doctors are private practitioners.

Since the NHI’s inception in 1995, the capacity and use of Taiwan’s health care system has expanded. While Taiwan’s population grew by 5.2% between 1994 and 2000, the supply of health professionals overall increased by 39.6%, and the number of physicians increased by 33.5%. Over the same period the number of hospital beds increased by 32.3%. While Taiwan’s population grew 5.2% between 1994 and 2000, the volume of hospital outpatient visits increased by 16.6%, emergency room visits by 42.2%, outpatient surgery by 56.4%, and inpatient hospitalization by 18%. With the exception of certain costly high-tech treatments which require prior authorization from BNHI, there are effectively no ceilings on utilization, which has resulted in high health care usage rates, especially for outpatient care.

The use of services has expanded unevenly across hospital types and locations. Services in low income and remote areas are not well-distributed and offer varying degrees of service. While the overall ratio of physicians per 1,000 people in 2001 was 1.37, it was only 0.33 among Taiwan’s aboriginal people and 0.8 in the mountainous areas and offshore islands. BNHI has since introduced incentives for providers to practice in remote areas and has exempted cost sharing for the poor and for those who live in remote areas.

The National Health Insurance system (NHIS) accredits both service providers and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) that interface between providers, the NHIS and its beneficiaries. To receive accreditation, health facilities must meet a number of requirements for the physical facility and the personnel, including:

• All medical professionals must be in possession of the current license to practice;
• The facility must be appropriate for service delivery;
• Facility must be registered with state authorities;
• Facility and staff must possess malpractice insurance.

In addition, an accreditation fee is required. Currently 61 HMOs have been accredited and registered by NHIS in addition to about 6,000 primary care providers, 1,000 ancillary providers, and over 600 secondary and tertiary providers. Recently the NHIS announced the suspension of accreditation of new HMOs and providers because there is a need to strengthen the scheme and improve quality of healthcare services delivery through reaccreditation.

In general, the service delivery system in Nigeria is organized on a tiered basis:

• Tertiary facilities are operated by the central government and form the highest level of health care and serve as referral centers for patients;
• Secondary facilities are managed by state governments and provide some specialized health services;
• Primary facilities are run by local governments and provide the most basic entry point to the health care system at health centers, clinics, and dispensaries.

The service delivery system is mixed between private and public providers. The private health care system has grown substantially since the 1980s, to currently provide about 80% of the total health services. This sector, however, is not well regulated or supported. Of all the private facilities in Nigeria, about 50% are for-profit. Despite the large number of service providers, coverage of most key preventative and curative health services is relatively low. There are large disparities in geo-political zones, between rural and urban zones, and with regard to socio-economic status; the poorest fifth of the population are much less likely to receive medical services than their counterparts in the wealthiest 20% of the population.

Primary care delivery happens through primary care units and primary care teams under the Family Health Program (PSF). Primary care units are run by municipalities and are mostly managed by government-employed clinicians. These units are funded on a per capita basis based on the population size within the catchment area. While patients can use clinics outside of their area, they may be encouraged or referred back to their corresponding primary care unit. In some municipalities, primary care units are contracted-out through RFP on a winner-take-all basis to NGOs, who receive similar per capita budgets as government health centers but are not subject to civil service rules. They can more easily hire and fire and some are experimenting with pay for performance mechanisms.

Service delivery within the Family Health Program (PSF) and the Community Health Agents Program (PACS) is the responsibility of the Municipal Health Secretariat. The PSF is the program through which the government reorganized some of the organization and delivery of publicly financed primary health care (In recent years, the PSF has also covered chronic diseases). In essence, it has turned a passive, facility-based delivery system into a dynamic, outreach model in which family healthcare providers deliver care to households and communities. There is a primary care team responsible for a territory of 800-1,000 families, or up to 4,000 people. The team includes a generalist physician, a nurse, a community health agent, and an odontologist or dental hygienist. The team monitors and evaluates the health situation of the population, provides primary care services, and makes referrals to other levels of the system. The number of PSF teams increased from zero in 1994 to close to 32,000 by 2008.

The primary purpose of the PACS is to improve the health and quality of life of the community. PACS utilizes community personnel with no higher education to engage in a wide variety of activities such as registering families, general diagnostics, sanitary health, looking out for critical situations in need of intervention, and overall follow-up with families and patients.

The delivery of secondary and tertiary health care services under the SUS is conducted through both public and private providers. Public contracting of private hospitals has a long history in Brazil, where the SUS contracts for private beds. In 1999, 67% of all SUS hospitals were privately owned, 8% were state owned, and 23% were municipally owned. In terms of clinics, 27% were privately owned, 3% were state owned, and 69% were municipally owned. Such ratios make it clear that while the SUS is a publicly funded system, the private sector is responsible for a large proportion of the services provided.

The role of the private sector in service delivery appears to be waning slightly. Between 1988 and 2005, public establishments offering hospitalizations grew by 50%, while private establishments offering the same grew by 23%.
In 2005, 34% of Brazil’s hospital beds were in public facilities while 66% were in private facilities. Of the beds in the private sector, 82.1% have indicated that they are providing services under the SUS. Thus, there were 55% more beds offering SUS services within the private sector as compared to the public sector.

Public contracting of services with private providers is allowed under MOH guidelines. Managers can complement the supply of services with private providers only when all public health capacity is being used and when the need is proven and justified. Charitable and non-profit organizations, however, are given the status of public sector partners. Furthermore, in order for private entities to be able to provide service to the SUS, they must agree to make available 60% of their capacity to the SUS. These private entities can only serve private users once capacity has been exhausted by SUS patients.