UHC Forward: Towards Universal Health Coverage

One of the central aspects of the 1993 reform involved separating the financing, stewardship, and delivery functions within the health system. While hospitals still receive some supply-side subsidies through the SGP, the spirit of the reform is to eventually transform them into demand-side subsidies. Health service providers must now compete on the basis of quality for the majority of services provided. Under this scheme EPSs and EPSSs negotiate contracts with service providers. They also coordinate service delivery between patients and a network of public and private providers. Preventive and primary care services are primarily contracted by capitation, with EPSs providing such services through vertically integrated networks and EPSSs providing such services mainly through public hospitals. Most specialist and hospital care is paid for either by service packages or on a fee-for-service basis.

Colombia’s provider market features two levels of market competition. On the first level, enrollees choose their EPS or EPSS based on the quality of its provider network. On the second level, the EPSs and EPSSs select their provider network based on their price and quality. Therefore, there are real incentives within the system for providers to supply better quality services at lower prices.

Services are organized by levels of care. The first level includes facilities that offer general medicine. This level is supposed to provide the majority of services. The second level comprises providers of basic specialized medical and surgical services. Finally, the third level includes institutions that provide specialty and sub-specialty care as well as high complexity hospitalization.

Providers must meet minimum quality, financial, and administrative standards that are enforced by the Ministry of Social Protection (MPS). Providers must also register at the local health authority, which issues a three year certificate. The health authority verification is met through an on-site inspection. Furthermore, since 2002 the Obligatory System to Guarantee the Quality of Health Services (SOGCS) has helped to maintain and improve the quality of health services by focusing on accreditation, audit, and information management.

In terms of monitoring service providers, Law 100 mandated the establishment of a compulsory quality assurance system. However, the creation of such a mechanism lagged behind the implementation of other facets of the reform. In 2002, a quality assurance system was finally implemented that introduced a licensing and accreditation process for both public and private facilities. And in 2006 a systematic dissemination of hospitals’ quality began to take place on a regular basis.

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.

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.