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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
||
| Ghana: National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) |
|
1368 | 966 |
In order to provide the basic package of services, NHIS covers both public and private health care providers at all levels of the health system, subject to their accreditation by the NHIA. As of December 2009, 966 private, 1,368 public and 163 CHAG providers were enrolled in NHIS. Read full sectionIn order to provide the basic package of services, NHIS covers both public and private health care providers at all levels of the health system, subject to their accreditation by the NHIA. As of December 2009, 966 private, 1,368 public and 163 CHAG providers were enrolled in NHIS. At present all public facilities have been given a provisional accreditation and 800 private providers (many of them pharmacies and ‘chemical shops’) have been accredited by the NHIA. National Health Insurance Regulations (LI 1809, Regulation 19 (1)) state that the first point of attendance for accessing health care under the NHIS should be a primary healthcare facility. This includes CHPS, health centers, district hospitals, polyclinics, quasi public hospitals, private hospitals, clinics and maternity homes. Where the only facility is a Regional Hospital, it will also be considered a primary healthcare facility. In emergencies, any accredited healthcare facility may be utilized. National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS)Service delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers: 1368
Number of non-state providers: 966 In order to provide the basic package of services, NHIS covers both public and private health care providers at all levels of the health system, subject to their accreditation by the NHIA. As of December 2009, 966 private, 1,368 public and 163 CHAG providers were enrolled in NHIS. At present all public facilities have been given a provisional accreditation and 800 private providers (many of them pharmacies and ‘chemical shops’) have been accredited by the NHIA. National Health Insurance Regulations (LI 1809, Regulation 19 (1)) state that the first point of attendance for accessing health care under the NHIS should be a primary healthcare facility. This includes CHPS, health centers, district hospitals, polyclinics, quasi public hospitals, private hospitals, clinics and maternity homes. Where the only facility is a Regional Hospital, it will also be considered a primary healthcare facility. In emergencies, any accredited healthcare facility may be utilized. |
| 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. |
| Mexico: Seguro Popular |
|
The Social Protection in Health Regime (REPSS) at the state level is responsible for forming and coordinating the network of health service providers. In practice, the first option (and often the only one due to political factors or lack of technical competence) is to contract for health services from the network of State Health Services (SESA), followed by limited contracting with the private sector. These contracts are signed on a yearly basis. Out of nine states analyzed in a recent study, only two actively contracted for services with private health care providers. As of 2009, the SP has started buying services from the IMSS-Oportunidades Program and it is expected that contracting for services will extend to both IMSS and ISSSTE. Read full sectionThe Social Protection in Health Regime (REPSS) at the state level is responsible for forming and coordinating the network of health service providers. In practice, the first option (and often the only one due to political factors or lack of technical competence) is to contract for health services from the network of State Health Services (SESA), followed by limited contracting with the private sector. These contracts are signed on a yearly basis. Out of nine states analyzed in a recent study, only two actively contracted for services with private health care providers. As of 2009, the SP has started buying services from the IMSS-Oportunidades Program and it is expected that contracting for services will extend to both IMSS and ISSSTE. Some expect that such contracting schemes will lead to the ultimate financial integration of the system. The reform also created a long-term framework for expanding health care facilities. As of 2006, nearly 1,800 new facilities had been built, including four high-specialty regional hospitals in the least developed regions of Mexico. Service delivery for services that fall under the essential benefits package is decentralized at the state level due to the low-risk, high-probability nature of the interventions. High-cost tertiary care that falls under the FPGC, however, is delivered at regional or national health centers that offer highly specialized services. These types of procedures are often performed at private facilities. Seguro PopularService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: The Social Protection in Health Regime (REPSS) at the state level is responsible for forming and coordinating the network of health service providers. In practice, the first option (and often the only one due to political factors or lack of technical competence) is to contract for health services from the network of State Health Services (SESA), followed by limited contracting with the private sector. These contracts are signed on a yearly basis. Out of nine states analyzed in a recent study, only two actively contracted for services with private health care providers. As of 2009, the SP has started buying services from the IMSS-Oportunidades Program and it is expected that contracting for services will extend to both IMSS and ISSSTE. Some expect that such contracting schemes will lead to the ultimate financial integration of the system. The reform also created a long-term framework for expanding health care facilities. As of 2006, nearly 1,800 new facilities had been built, including four high-specialty regional hospitals in the least developed regions of Mexico. Service delivery for services that fall under the essential benefits package is decentralized at the state level due to the low-risk, high-probability nature of the interventions. High-cost tertiary care that falls under the FPGC, however, is delivered at regional or national health centers that offer highly specialized services. These types of procedures are often performed at private facilities. |
||
| 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. |