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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Colombia: General System of Social Security in Health |
|
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. Read full sectionOne 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. General System of Social Security in HealthService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kyrgyz Republic: Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) |
|
The reforms restructured the health delivery system to form a completely new PHC sector and introduced retraining mechanisms for physicians in order to establish a cadre of autonomous primary care providers across the country. From 2000 to 2003 alone, the share of primary care expenditures in total health spending increased from 17% to 31%. Read full sectionThe reforms restructured the health delivery system to form a completely new PHC sector and introduced retraining mechanisms for physicians in order to establish a cadre of autonomous primary care providers across the country. From 2000 to 2003 alone, the share of primary care expenditures in total health spending increased from 17% to 31%. Enrollees are free to choose a family group practice for their primary care and they can switch once per year during the annual registration period. In large urban settings, practices that offer higher quality services will attract a larger number of patients, leading to higher capitation payments for the practice. Rural areas, however, have too few providers in order to create this type of quality incentive. After the primary care reforms created the undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education curricula, the number of primary care physicians rose significantly from 5.8 per 1,000 population in 2001 to 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2005. Furthermore, by the end of 2004, 75 percent of primary care physicians and nurses had been retrained as family physicians and family medicine nurses. Kyrgyzstan has three types of primary care providers. First, the core of the old rural health system, Feldsher-Obstetric Ambulatory Points (FAPs) are facilities in the most remote reaches of the country that offer basic services such as neonatal care, immunizations, and health education. As of 2006 there were 875 FAPs across Kyrgyzstan, each serving between 500 and 2,000 people. Second, Family Group Practices (FGPs) are the major providers of primary care in Kyrgyzstan. FGPs are normally made up of three to five doctors. They can be freestanding and autonomous entities or units within large hospital polyclinics. Finally, Family Medicine Centers (FMCs) are large outpatient facilities staffed by varying numbers of specialists, often 10 to 20 health care professionals in addition to their affiliated FGPs. Their service offerings range from primary care to specialized care, including instrumental diagnostics. In 2006, approximately 93% of FAPs and 96% of FGPs were part of Family Medicine Centers. Secondary care is provided by hospitals at the oblast level (generally one oblast merged hospital in each oblast), and by territorial hospitals in rayons and cities (51 hospitals nationally). The main difference between these two types of hospitals lies in the variety and complexity of conditions that they can handle. Tertiary care that provides highly specialized services is conducted in eight central-level hospitals. In terms of legal organization, most health care organizations tend to be public. The exceptions are optic, dental, urologic, and gynecological services, which tend to be private facilities and are mostly concentrated in the capital city of Bishkek. Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF)Service delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers:
Number of non-state providers: The reforms restructured the health delivery system to form a completely new PHC sector and introduced retraining mechanisms for physicians in order to establish a cadre of autonomous primary care providers across the country. From 2000 to 2003 alone, the share of primary care expenditures in total health spending increased from 17% to 31%. Enrollees are free to choose a family group practice for their primary care and they can switch once per year during the annual registration period. In large urban settings, practices that offer higher quality services will attract a larger number of patients, leading to higher capitation payments for the practice. Rural areas, however, have too few providers in order to create this type of quality incentive. After the primary care reforms created the undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education curricula, the number of primary care physicians rose significantly from 5.8 per 1,000 population in 2001 to 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2005. Furthermore, by the end of 2004, 75 percent of primary care physicians and nurses had been retrained as family physicians and family medicine nurses. Kyrgyzstan has three types of primary care providers. First, the core of the old rural health system, Feldsher-Obstetric Ambulatory Points (FAPs) are facilities in the most remote reaches of the country that offer basic services such as neonatal care, immunizations, and health education. As of 2006 there were 875 FAPs across Kyrgyzstan, each serving between 500 and 2,000 people. Second, Family Group Practices (FGPs) are the major providers of primary care in Kyrgyzstan. FGPs are normally made up of three to five doctors. They can be freestanding and autonomous entities or units within large hospital polyclinics. Finally, Family Medicine Centers (FMCs) are large outpatient facilities staffed by varying numbers of specialists, often 10 to 20 health care professionals in addition to their affiliated FGPs. Their service offerings range from primary care to specialized care, including instrumental diagnostics. In 2006, approximately 93% of FAPs and 96% of FGPs were part of Family Medicine Centers. Secondary care is provided by hospitals at the oblast level (generally one oblast merged hospital in each oblast), and by territorial hospitals in rayons and cities (51 hospitals nationally). The main difference between these two types of hospitals lies in the variety and complexity of conditions that they can handle. Tertiary care that provides highly specialized services is conducted in eight central-level hospitals. In terms of legal organization, most health care organizations tend to be public. The exceptions are optic, dental, urologic, and gynecological services, which tend to be private facilities and are mostly concentrated in the capital city of Bishkek. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rwanda: Mutuelles de Sante |
|
165 | 411 |
Mutuelle members are able to access health care through all public and private non-profit health centers in Rwanda, which excludes only 10% of the country’s health care facilities that are private and for-profit. A recent law titled the Patient Roaming System was passed allowing any Mutuelle member to seek health care at any health center throughout the country. However, this has not been realized in practice as the capacity to transfer bills and funds is still limited, despite ambitions for more e-health solutions. Read full sectionMutuelle members are able to access health care through all public and private non-profit health centers in Rwanda, which excludes only 10% of the country’s health care facilities that are private and for-profit. A recent law titled the Patient Roaming System was passed allowing any Mutuelle member to seek health care at any health center throughout the country. However, this has not been realized in practice as the capacity to transfer bills and funds is still limited, despite ambitions for more e-health solutions. Rwanda has about 411 private and public health centers in total, which deliver primary and secondary care at the sector and district level. Facilities are run by for-profit entities, traditional healers, non-governmental agencies, and governmentally-assisted health organizations. Public Governmentally Assisted Health Facilities (GAHFs) are run by NGOs, religious groups, and other third parties and are partially funded by the central government. These account for approximately 40% of all primary and secondary care facilities. Primary care includes out-patient services, in-patient services, and preventive services such as immunizations, while secondary care is provided by district hospitals, which are responsible for more specialized procedures such as surgery, management of complicated cases such as severe malaria, organization of health services in health centers, administrative functioning and logistics—including the management of resources and supply of drugs— as well as supervision of community health workers. In addition, six mental health operational poles in district hospitals have been established and 30 district hospitals have integrated mental healthcare into the system. Each district health center serves approximately 200,000 people, with an average of one bed per every 1,000 people. However, these figures mask substantial variation between districts and provinces, which range from 70,000 to 480,000 people served per district. In 2006 Rwanda purchased 51 ambulances and 270 motorcycles for the district level health centers. Tertiary care is delivered at the national level at one of the few specialized, national medical institutions. There are only 4 tertiary care hospitals in Rwanda, 3 public and 1 private. While national hospitals should primarily serve as referral hospitals, in reality there is substantial overlap due to unclear delineation of responsibilities. Currently, individuals are considered to have access to medical centers if services can be reached within one and half hours by foot; approximately 85% of the population falls into this category. For the 15% of individuals living in rural areas, telemedicine is currently being used to reach geographically isolated regions. Pharmacies make generic medications available through the independent purchasing supply house called the Central Purchasing of Essential Drugs, Medical Consumables and Equipment in Rwanda (Centrale d’Achat des Medicaments Essentiels au Rwnda or CAMERWA), a non-profit organization that sells medications to district pharmacies and health facilities as a means of financing the activities of CAMERWA. The government fully finances vaccines and immunizations with the Expanded Programme on Immunizations. The table below summarizes the growth in the number of health facilities in Rwanda since the 1980s.
Mutuelles de SanteService delivery system Types of Providers Empanelled: Both Public & Non-state
Number of public providers: 165
Number of non-state providers: 411 Mutuelle members are able to access health care through all public and private non-profit health centers in Rwanda, which excludes only 10% of the country’s health care facilities that are private and for-profit. A recent law titled the Patient Roaming System was passed allowing any Mutuelle member to seek health care at any health center throughout the country. However, this has not been realized in practice as the capacity to transfer bills and funds is still limited, despite ambitions for more e-health solutions. Rwanda has about 411 private and public health centers in total, which deliver primary and secondary care at the sector and district level. Facilities are run by for-profit entities, traditional healers, non-governmental agencies, and governmentally-assisted health organizations. Public Governmentally Assisted Health Facilities (GAHFs) are run by NGOs, religious groups, and other third parties and are partially funded by the central government. These account for approximately 40% of all primary and secondary care facilities. Primary care includes out-patient services, in-patient services, and preventive services such as immunizations, while secondary care is provided by district hospitals, which are responsible for more specialized procedures such as surgery, management of complicated cases such as severe malaria, organization of health services in health centers, administrative functioning and logistics—including the management of resources and supply of drugs— as well as supervision of community health workers. In addition, six mental health operational poles in district hospitals have been established and 30 district hospitals have integrated mental healthcare into the system. Each district health center serves approximately 200,000 people, with an average of one bed per every 1,000 people. However, these figures mask substantial variation between districts and provinces, which range from 70,000 to 480,000 people served per district. In 2006 Rwanda purchased 51 ambulances and 270 motorcycles for the district level health centers. Tertiary care is delivered at the national level at one of the few specialized, national medical institutions. There are only 4 tertiary care hospitals in Rwanda, 3 public and 1 private. While national hospitals should primarily serve as referral hospitals, in reality there is substantial overlap due to unclear delineation of responsibilities. Currently, individuals are considered to have access to medical centers if services can be reached within one and half hours by foot; approximately 85% of the population falls into this category. For the 15% of individuals living in rural areas, telemedicine is currently being used to reach geographically isolated regions. Pharmacies make generic medications available through the independent purchasing supply house called the Central Purchasing of Essential Drugs, Medical Consumables and Equipment in Rwanda (Centrale d’Achat des Medicaments Essentiels au Rwnda or CAMERWA), a non-profit organization that sells medications to district pharmacies and health facilities as a means of financing the activities of CAMERWA. The government fully finances vaccines and immunizations with the Expanded Programme on Immunizations. The table below summarizes the growth in the number of health facilities in Rwanda since the 1980s.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |