The Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage systematically documents the reforms of its member countries and other countries that have expanded health coverage through demand-side financing. The case studies contained in these pages are brief, comparative and modular in nature, describing the key highlights and technical features of each program.
Compare various dimensions of country reform efforts using our interactive tool.
| Program | Service delivery system | Public providers | Non-state providers | Service delivery system | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estonia: Estonian Health Insurance Fund |
|
Health care provision in Estonia is completely decentralized. Care within the Estonian system is characterized by four tiers:
Health care provision in Estonia is completely decentralized. Care within the Estonian system is characterized by four tiers:
All health care providers operate as private, independent, legal entities. These entities can be private individuals, limited liability companies, or foundations. Most hospitals belong to local governments. They are managed as either limited companies or as non-profit foundations. Hospitals function as true business entities, with managers able to strive for better clinical practice and empowered to achieve improved financial performance. Management structures are explicit with a supervisory board and a management board governing the process. Maximum waiting times for specialized services vary by type. Ambulatory care is capped at four weeks, inpatient care and day surgeries are capped at eight months, and other interventions such as joint replacements have maximum waiting times of up to two and a half years. This initially led some patients to jump the queue by seeking care privately. However, queue jumping rules have recently been established to prevent private patients from getting quicker access to treatment. Cutting in the queue is only permitted in cases where the waiting list is caused by a provider having reached the EHIF contract volume. Service delivery must take place within agreed time limits. Emergency care must be provided immediately, outpatient specialist care must be provided within four weeks, and inpatient care must be provided within six months. Estonian Health Insurance FundService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: Health care provision in Estonia is completely decentralized. Care within the Estonian system is characterized by four tiers:
All health care providers operate as private, independent, legal entities. These entities can be private individuals, limited liability companies, or foundations. Most hospitals belong to local governments. They are managed as either limited companies or as non-profit foundations. Hospitals function as true business entities, with managers able to strive for better clinical practice and empowered to achieve improved financial performance. Management structures are explicit with a supervisory board and a management board governing the process. Maximum waiting times for specialized services vary by type. Ambulatory care is capped at four weeks, inpatient care and day surgeries are capped at eight months, and other interventions such as joint replacements have maximum waiting times of up to two and a half years. This initially led some patients to jump the queue by seeking care privately. However, queue jumping rules have recently been established to prevent private patients from getting quicker access to treatment. Cutting in the queue is only permitted in cases where the waiting list is caused by a provider having reached the EHIF contract volume. Service delivery must take place within agreed time limits. Emergency care must be provided immediately, outpatient specialist care must be provided within four weeks, and inpatient care must be provided within six months. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chile: National Health Fund (FONASA) |
|
In 1985, two modalities of health service provision were established for FONASA beneficiaries. Under the Institutional Modality (IM), FONASA beneficiaries can access the public system in order to use public hospitals. Financial coverage under this modality is dependent upon the income of the beneficiary. Under the Free Election Modality (FEM), FONASA beneficiaries can opt to use private health service providers that have entered into agreements with FONASA. Financial coverage under this modality depends on the category to which the health service provider is subscribed. Generally, FEM copayments are larger than IM copayments. Read full sectionIn 1985, two modalities of health service provision were established for FONASA beneficiaries. Under the Institutional Modality (IM), FONASA beneficiaries can access the public system in order to use public hospitals. Financial coverage under this modality is dependent upon the income of the beneficiary. Under the Free Election Modality (FEM), FONASA beneficiaries can opt to use private health service providers that have entered into agreements with FONASA. Financial coverage under this modality depends on the category to which the health service provider is subscribed. Generally, FEM copayments are larger than IM copayments. Chile’s service delivery system is composed of 26 autonomous health authorities responsible for hospital care. Primary health care was decentralized down to the level of the municipality. In Chile, 80% of hospital beds are public. FONASA is required to purchase most of its health services from public institutions, although it does provide a subsidy to its enrollees wishing to purchase services from private providers. Public health care providers must sell most of their services to FONASA and have strict guidelines on the type and number of services they can make available to private patients or ISAPRE beneficiaries. FONASA categories B, C, and D can elect to receive care outside of the public system for a higher co-payment. Category A enrollees must receive services from the public provider system. Of all the AUGE procedures carried out, 86% are conducted at the primary health level. Meanwhile, of the AUGE procedures for FONASA beneficiaries performed in the private sector, 90% correspond to dialysis treatment. Whenever there is a risk of falling behind on the guarantees, services must be purchased from elsewhere. For example, in the case of cancer a public hospital will normally purchase services from another public hospital. In the case of cataracts, however, a public hospital will normally purchase services from the private sector. The AUGE plan has changed the manner in which health service delivery is viewed. In the past, supply determined how many cataract interventions were performed based on the internal capacity of the institution. But now, with certain services explicitly guaranteed, the health system has to detect the prevalence of cataracts and determine how to best reorganize resources in order to satisfy demand. Chile has also instituted a free telephone line that responds to inquiries regarding a number of different health situations. It is staffed by a team that has the ability to provide medical advice and set up consultations. This service has led to a significant reduction in emergency room visits, as problems that are deemed non-urgent can be resolved through primary care personnel. Finally, it is worth noting that ISAPREs are not allowed to provide health services directly to their enrollees. They must rely on horizontal networks of health care providers and hospitals for the delivery of services. National Health Fund (FONASA)Service delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: In 1985, two modalities of health service provision were established for FONASA beneficiaries. Under the Institutional Modality (IM), FONASA beneficiaries can access the public system in order to use public hospitals. Financial coverage under this modality is dependent upon the income of the beneficiary. Under the Free Election Modality (FEM), FONASA beneficiaries can opt to use private health service providers that have entered into agreements with FONASA. Financial coverage under this modality depends on the category to which the health service provider is subscribed. Generally, FEM copayments are larger than IM copayments. Chile’s service delivery system is composed of 26 autonomous health authorities responsible for hospital care. Primary health care was decentralized down to the level of the municipality. In Chile, 80% of hospital beds are public. FONASA is required to purchase most of its health services from public institutions, although it does provide a subsidy to its enrollees wishing to purchase services from private providers. Public health care providers must sell most of their services to FONASA and have strict guidelines on the type and number of services they can make available to private patients or ISAPRE beneficiaries. FONASA categories B, C, and D can elect to receive care outside of the public system for a higher co-payment. Category A enrollees must receive services from the public provider system. Of all the AUGE procedures carried out, 86% are conducted at the primary health level. Meanwhile, of the AUGE procedures for FONASA beneficiaries performed in the private sector, 90% correspond to dialysis treatment. Whenever there is a risk of falling behind on the guarantees, services must be purchased from elsewhere. For example, in the case of cancer a public hospital will normally purchase services from another public hospital. In the case of cataracts, however, a public hospital will normally purchase services from the private sector. The AUGE plan has changed the manner in which health service delivery is viewed. In the past, supply determined how many cataract interventions were performed based on the internal capacity of the institution. But now, with certain services explicitly guaranteed, the health system has to detect the prevalence of cataracts and determine how to best reorganize resources in order to satisfy demand. Chile has also instituted a free telephone line that responds to inquiries regarding a number of different health situations. It is staffed by a team that has the ability to provide medical advice and set up consultations. This service has led to a significant reduction in emergency room visits, as problems that are deemed non-urgent can be resolved through primary care personnel. Finally, it is worth noting that ISAPREs are not allowed to provide health services directly to their enrollees. They must rely on horizontal networks of health care providers and hospitals for the delivery of services. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| : Taiwan: National Health Insurance |
|
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. Read full sectionTaiwan 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. National Health InsuranceService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kenya: National Hospital Insurance Fund |
|
150 | 450 |
National Hospital Insurance Fund contracts with about 600 health facilities that are managed by both the public and private sector throughout Kenya’s 8 provinces. About 150 of these facilities are state-run, while the remaining hospitals are managed by private and mission organizations. Individuals who are members of NHIF are able to access their benefits at any of the hospitals affiliated with NHIF regardless of locations. Read full sectionNational Hospital Insurance Fund contracts with about 600 health facilities that are managed by both the public and private sector throughout Kenya’s 8 provinces. About 150 of these facilities are state-run, while the remaining hospitals are managed by private and mission organizations. Individuals who are members of NHIF are able to access their benefits at any of the hospitals affiliated with NHIF regardless of locations. NHIF has an accreditation and contracting process with is administered at the branch level of the NHIF. This process begins with the hospital submitting an application to join the NHIF network. The NHIF branch manager then visits the hospital and uses a master checklist to rate the hospital based on a diverse set of standards including physical infrastructure, personnel, and services offered. The NHIF then works with hospital management to set up a Quality training process and a Quality improvement program, and train hospital staff on the operational procedures of the NHIF. Contracts are generally signed for a period of 2 years, with evaluations by the NHIF branch management at 6-month intervals which are submitted to the NHIF board for review. Outpatient services are not currently covered by the NHIF. In 2008 there were 4,700 health facilities nationwide, 51% of which were owned and operated by the central government, 34% were operated privately, and 15% were maintained by non-governmental organizations, foreign-based organizations, or religious groups. The private sector provides about 60% of the total medical equipment and supplies. The private sector plays a large role healthcare system, especially in the field of facilities and personnel; 47% of the poorest quintile of Kenyans uses a private facility when a child is sick. All health facilities are integrated in a hierarchy with the most sophisticated services available at the national level. The next best level of care is found in the provincial hospitals, followed by sub-district hospitals. At local and sub location levels service is provided through health centers and dispensaries, these account for about 85% of all health facilities in the country. The focus on decentralization has delegated increasing amounts of daily management to the community and district levels as the health system has progressed. The quality of care provided by health facilities is unequally distributed across the country; only 30% of the rural population has access to health facilities within 4 kilometers, while such access is available to 70% of urban dwellers. National Hospital Insurance FundService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers: 150
Number of non-state providers: 450 National Hospital Insurance Fund contracts with about 600 health facilities that are managed by both the public and private sector throughout Kenya’s 8 provinces. About 150 of these facilities are state-run, while the remaining hospitals are managed by private and mission organizations. Individuals who are members of NHIF are able to access their benefits at any of the hospitals affiliated with NHIF regardless of locations. NHIF has an accreditation and contracting process with is administered at the branch level of the NHIF. This process begins with the hospital submitting an application to join the NHIF network. The NHIF branch manager then visits the hospital and uses a master checklist to rate the hospital based on a diverse set of standards including physical infrastructure, personnel, and services offered. The NHIF then works with hospital management to set up a Quality training process and a Quality improvement program, and train hospital staff on the operational procedures of the NHIF. Contracts are generally signed for a period of 2 years, with evaluations by the NHIF branch management at 6-month intervals which are submitted to the NHIF board for review. Outpatient services are not currently covered by the NHIF. In 2008 there were 4,700 health facilities nationwide, 51% of which were owned and operated by the central government, 34% were operated privately, and 15% were maintained by non-governmental organizations, foreign-based organizations, or religious groups. The private sector provides about 60% of the total medical equipment and supplies. The private sector plays a large role healthcare system, especially in the field of facilities and personnel; 47% of the poorest quintile of Kenyans uses a private facility when a child is sick. All health facilities are integrated in a hierarchy with the most sophisticated services available at the national level. The next best level of care is found in the provincial hospitals, followed by sub-district hospitals. At local and sub location levels service is provided through health centers and dispensaries, these account for about 85% of all health facilities in the country. The focus on decentralization has delegated increasing amounts of daily management to the community and district levels as the health system has progressed. The quality of care provided by health facilities is unequally distributed across the country; only 30% of the rural population has access to health facilities within 4 kilometers, while such access is available to 70% of urban dwellers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Philippines: PhilHealth |
|
The service delivery system includes both public and private centers; on average, the network is comprised of 61% private and 39% public providers. Read full sectionThe service delivery system includes both public and private centers; on average, the network is comprised of 61% private and 39% public providers. In order to achieve accreditation, all in-network hospitals and day-surgery centers must be licensed by the Department of Health. The network includes hospitals, day surgery centers, maternity care clinics, midwife-operated clinics, freestanding dialysis centers, physician clinics, dentists doing procedures in hospitals and day surgeries, government-run health centers for primary care benefits, TB DOTS and malaria, and private TB-DOTS clinics. Non-hospitals and day-surgery centers are not required to be licensed by the DOH; however, all facilities are evaluated by an accreditation team from PhilHealth. PhilHealthService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: The service delivery system includes both public and private centers; on average, the network is comprised of 61% private and 39% public providers. In order to achieve accreditation, all in-network hospitals and day-surgery centers must be licensed by the Department of Health. The network includes hospitals, day surgery centers, maternity care clinics, midwife-operated clinics, freestanding dialysis centers, physician clinics, dentists doing procedures in hospitals and day surgeries, government-run health centers for primary care benefits, TB DOTS and malaria, and private TB-DOTS clinics. Non-hospitals and day-surgery centers are not required to be licensed by the DOH; however, all facilities are evaluated by an accreditation team from PhilHealth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| India: RSBY |
|
551 | 1516 |
As of October 2009, the RSBY delivery network included 2,067 hospitals, 1,516 private and 551 public. Providers are empanelled by a state-selected insurance company based on specific structural, procedural and quality criteria, including the installation of SmartCard readers and all associated technology. A health care provider empanelled by any of the insurers in RSBY gets automatically empanelled by all the other insurers. Read full sectionAs of October 2009, the RSBY delivery network included 2,067 hospitals, 1,516 private and 551 public. Providers are empanelled by a state-selected insurance company based on specific structural, procedural and quality criteria, including the installation of SmartCard readers and all associated technology. A health care provider empanelled by any of the insurers in RSBY gets automatically empanelled by all the other insurers. After an insurance company is selected by the state, the insurance company is tasked with empaneling/certifying both public and private care providers in the program. The process is based on prescribed criteria (e.g., the service providers should possess specified basic facilities, like: have at least 10 inpatient medical beds; have specified medical and surgical facilities and diagnostic facilities, etc.). In addition, hospitals must agree to need to install necessary hardware and software to be able to process beneficiaries’ SmartCard transactions. They must also set up a dedicated RSBY desk with trained staff. The insurer must empanel enough hospitals in each district so that beneficiaries do not need to travel great distances to get to health care services. For empanelment of public hospitals, the insurer needs to coordinate with the respective health department of the state. Once a hospital is empanelled, a nationally-unique hospital ID number is generated so that transactions can be tracked at each hospital. Each empanelled hospital is connected with the district server of the insurance company and thus able to transfer data related to hospitalization on a daily basis. RSBYService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers: 551
Number of non-state providers: 1516 As of October 2009, the RSBY delivery network included 2,067 hospitals, 1,516 private and 551 public. Providers are empanelled by a state-selected insurance company based on specific structural, procedural and quality criteria, including the installation of SmartCard readers and all associated technology. A health care provider empanelled by any of the insurers in RSBY gets automatically empanelled by all the other insurers. After an insurance company is selected by the state, the insurance company is tasked with empaneling/certifying both public and private care providers in the program. The process is based on prescribed criteria (e.g., the service providers should possess specified basic facilities, like: have at least 10 inpatient medical beds; have specified medical and surgical facilities and diagnostic facilities, etc.). In addition, hospitals must agree to need to install necessary hardware and software to be able to process beneficiaries’ SmartCard transactions. They must also set up a dedicated RSBY desk with trained staff. The insurer must empanel enough hospitals in each district so that beneficiaries do not need to travel great distances to get to health care services. For empanelment of public hospitals, the insurer needs to coordinate with the respective health department of the state. Once a hospital is empanelled, a nationally-unique hospital ID number is generated so that transactions can be tracked at each hospital. Each empanelled hospital is connected with the district server of the insurance company and thus able to transfer data related to hospitalization on a daily basis. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brazil: Unified Health System (SUS) |
|
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. Read full sectionPrimary 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%. 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. Unified Health System (SUS)Service delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: 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%. 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thailand: Universal Coverage Scheme |
|
The UCS service delivery network includes both public and private health care facilities. However, prior to registration, private health facilities must submit required documentation and are investigated according to standard criteria of the UCS. No similar process exists for public health care facilities and they are automatically registered in the delivery network. Read full sectionThe UCS service delivery network includes both public and private health care facilities. However, prior to registration, private health facilities must submit required documentation and are investigated according to standard criteria of the UCS. No similar process exists for public health care facilities and they are automatically registered in the delivery network. The Thai insurance system is based on the health system that is founded on the principles of primary care. For UCS in particular, primary care provider units (PCUs) have been designated as gatekeepers to provide care for UCS beneficiaries. As gatekeepers, PCUs are expected to provide people in their catchment areas with continuous and comprehensive care with a holistic approach. According to the services provided, health facilities under the UCS can be classified into three groups:
Private health facilities are investigated by the UCS before contracts are signed. There is no such investigation for public health care facilities as they are automatically registered in the delivery network. In principle, UCS beneficiaries are free to choose their primary providers. However, because of limited number of primary providers in rural areas, beneficiaries are assigned mainly to public primary providers close to their communities or their workplaces. Universal Coverage SchemeService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: The UCS service delivery network includes both public and private health care facilities. However, prior to registration, private health facilities must submit required documentation and are investigated according to standard criteria of the UCS. No similar process exists for public health care facilities and they are automatically registered in the delivery network. The Thai insurance system is based on the health system that is founded on the principles of primary care. For UCS in particular, primary care provider units (PCUs) have been designated as gatekeepers to provide care for UCS beneficiaries. As gatekeepers, PCUs are expected to provide people in their catchment areas with continuous and comprehensive care with a holistic approach. According to the services provided, health facilities under the UCS can be classified into three groups:
Private health facilities are investigated by the UCS before contracts are signed. There is no such investigation for public health care facilities as they are automatically registered in the delivery network. In principle, UCS beneficiaries are free to choose their primary providers. However, because of limited number of primary providers in rural areas, beneficiaries are assigned mainly to public primary providers close to their communities or their workplaces. |