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 | Primary source of funding | Secondary source of funding | Contributing Populations | Types of Contributions | Funding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vietnam: Compulsory and Voluntary Health Insurance Schemes |
|
|
|
|
The central Vietnamese government is responsible for financing the bulk of the cost. Provincial governments, however, also contribute a smaller percentage of funds to the program. Poor beneficiaries do not pay premiums and are exempt from copayments. The entire cost of the scheme, 4.5% of minimum wage, is covered by revenues from the state budget. Read full sectionThe central Vietnamese government is responsible for financing the bulk of the cost. Provincial governments, however, also contribute a smaller percentage of funds to the program. Poor beneficiaries do not pay premiums and are exempt from copayments. The entire cost of the scheme, 4.5% of minimum wage, is covered by revenues from the state budget. Funding for Vietnam’s various universal coverage schemes varies greatly by population segment. The following presents an overview of each program’s financing: Compulsory program (CHI)
Note that when the insurance program was initially introduced, there was no cost sharing. In 1998, cost sharing was introduced, with a 20 percent coinsurance rate but no deductible. In 2005, the 20 percent coinsurance rate was eliminated, only to be reintroduced again since January 1, 2010. Copayment is exempted for some groups, such as people of merit. Compulsory and Voluntary Health Insurance SchemesFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: None
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums The central Vietnamese government is responsible for financing the bulk of the cost. Provincial governments, however, also contribute a smaller percentage of funds to the program. Poor beneficiaries do not pay premiums and are exempt from copayments. The entire cost of the scheme, 4.5% of minimum wage, is covered by revenues from the state budget. Funding for Vietnam’s various universal coverage schemes varies greatly by population segment. The following presents an overview of each program’s financing: Compulsory program (CHI)
Note that when the insurance program was initially introduced, there was no cost sharing. In 1998, cost sharing was introduced, with a 20 percent coinsurance rate but no deductible. In 2005, the 20 percent coinsurance rate was eliminated, only to be reintroduced again since January 1, 2010. Copayment is exempted for some groups, such as people of merit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indonesia: Jamkesmas |
|
|
|
|
The Jamkesmas scheme is funded by the central government from general tax revenue. Beneficiaries are not responsible for premium payments nor are they charged a copayment at the time of visit. Read full sectionThe Jamkesmas scheme is funded by the central government from general tax revenue. Beneficiaries are not responsible for premium payments nor are they charged a copayment at the time of visit. A paramount question of importance in Indonesia is the solvency of the Jamkesmas program. Increasing utilization of health care will concurrently increase the cost of health insurance, particularly for the poorest populations covered by Jamkesmas as currently there is no co-payment provision within the program. While utilization of Puskesmas services has increased, the capacity of local service delivery may not be able to keep pace with increasing demands without further collaboration with private primary health care providers. Currently, it is the responsibility of the local government to finance the gap between the actual cost of insuring its population and what the central government provides via Jamkesmas reimbursements. Without further support for the poorest localities, this growing responsibility will become more problematic. The central government recognizes this problem, and in order to continue to strive towards universal coverage, it is considering how it might introduce strategies to develop further approaches to co-finance service delivery at the local level. The proposed funding requirements for the operational costs of preventive and promotive service delivery is under active consideration within the parliament at this time and known as the “BOK” fund. JamkesmasFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: None
Contributing Populations: All populations
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments The Jamkesmas scheme is funded by the central government from general tax revenue. Beneficiaries are not responsible for premium payments nor are they charged a copayment at the time of visit. A paramount question of importance in Indonesia is the solvency of the Jamkesmas program. Increasing utilization of health care will concurrently increase the cost of health insurance, particularly for the poorest populations covered by Jamkesmas as currently there is no co-payment provision within the program. While utilization of Puskesmas services has increased, the capacity of local service delivery may not be able to keep pace with increasing demands without further collaboration with private primary health care providers. Currently, it is the responsibility of the local government to finance the gap between the actual cost of insuring its population and what the central government provides via Jamkesmas reimbursements. Without further support for the poorest localities, this growing responsibility will become more problematic. The central government recognizes this problem, and in order to continue to strive towards universal coverage, it is considering how it might introduce strategies to develop further approaches to co-finance service delivery at the local level. The proposed funding requirements for the operational costs of preventive and promotive service delivery is under active consideration within the parliament at this time and known as the “BOK” fund. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mali: Mutuelles |
|
|
|
|
The intent of the social protection policy in Mali is to ensure fairness among the three systems in terms of the care that is covered, the government’s financial contribution, and the population, except of course for the indigent and retirees. The priority source for Mutuelle system resources will be membership dues. However, to boost the development of Mutuelles and to make coverage of the health risk universal for the majority of Malians in the interest of fairness, the government will make a financial contribution that aims to remedy the fact that the Mutuelle members have only a modest ability to contribute. This government contribution will be through a Mutuelle Support Fund. Read full sectionThe intent of the social protection policy in Mali is to ensure fairness among the three systems in terms of the care that is covered, the government’s financial contribution, and the population, except of course for the indigent and retirees. The priority source for Mutuelle system resources will be membership dues. However, to boost the development of Mutuelles and to make coverage of the health risk universal for the majority of Malians in the interest of fairness, the government will make a financial contribution that aims to remedy the fact that the Mutuelle members have only a modest ability to contribute. This government contribution will be through a Mutuelle Support Fund. Thus, the pilot phase will be funded from two sources: membership dues and the Mutuelle Support Fund financed by the government, the technical and financial partners, and the local and territorial governments. Membership dues will be used to pay expenses incurred at the community health center level. By contrast, the Support Fund will be used to pay for expenses in the referral facilities, which are the referring health centers and the hospitals, in order to fund investments made for implementing the strategy. Table 2: Financing planned under the social protection system in Mali, 2010
Source: Ministry of Social Protection The different members of the AMO thus pay the same membership dues (except for retirees), and the members and their beneficiaries are eligible for the same baskets of care. A trial period of six consecutive months after the right to benefits begins is mandatory, which is not the case for RAMED. RAMED provides the right to direct and full payment of the costs of care. The government’s contribution to funding RAMED is written into the finance law.Theoretically, the contribution from the territorial governments should also be included in their annual budgets. MutuellesFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: Member contributions
Contributing Populations: Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments The intent of the social protection policy in Mali is to ensure fairness among the three systems in terms of the care that is covered, the government’s financial contribution, and the population, except of course for the indigent and retirees. The priority source for Mutuelle system resources will be membership dues. However, to boost the development of Mutuelles and to make coverage of the health risk universal for the majority of Malians in the interest of fairness, the government will make a financial contribution that aims to remedy the fact that the Mutuelle members have only a modest ability to contribute. This government contribution will be through a Mutuelle Support Fund. Thus, the pilot phase will be funded from two sources: membership dues and the Mutuelle Support Fund financed by the government, the technical and financial partners, and the local and territorial governments. Membership dues will be used to pay expenses incurred at the community health center level. By contrast, the Support Fund will be used to pay for expenses in the referral facilities, which are the referring health centers and the hospitals, in order to fund investments made for implementing the strategy. Table 2: Financing planned under the social protection system in Mali, 2010
Source: Ministry of Social Protection The different members of the AMO thus pay the same membership dues (except for retirees), and the members and their beneficiaries are eligible for the same baskets of care. A trial period of six consecutive months after the right to benefits begins is mandatory, which is not the case for RAMED. RAMED provides the right to direct and full payment of the costs of care. The government’s contribution to funding RAMED is written into the finance law.Theoretically, the contribution from the territorial governments should also be included in their annual budgets. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chile: National Health Fund (FONASA) |
|
|
|
|
Monthly beneficiary contributions make up one third of FONASA funding, while half of FONASAs resources come from national coffers. The remainder is made up of operating income and copayments. FONASA is progressive in its funding mechanisms. Government subsidies are well targeted, with 90% directed to the indigent and 7.5% directed to low-income individuals. Furthermore, between 32% and 40% of high-income earner contributions cross-subsidize care for poorer beneficiaries. Read full sectionMonthly beneficiary contributions make up one third of FONASA funding, while half of FONASAs resources come from national coffers. The remainder is made up of operating income and copayments. FONASA is progressive in its funding mechanisms. Government subsidies are well targeted, with 90% directed to the indigent and 7.5% directed to low-income individuals. Furthermore, between 32% and 40% of high-income earner contributions cross-subsidize care for poorer beneficiaries. Primary health is free for all who enroll with FONASA. Hospital and ambulatory care under the Institutional Modality, however, require copayments that are determined by the income group in which the patient is classified. Group A (the indigent) and B (low income) receive free care, while group C pays 10% of the cost of the service and group D pays 20%. When enrollees undergo three family health events that require medical attention, those in groups D or C are transferred to groups C and B respectively. Catastrophic Insurance under FONASA is fully covered for patients who elect the Institutional Modality in accredited public hospitals. Furthermore, under the Free Election Modality, FONASA beneficiaries in groups B, C, and D can obtain a partial voucher from FONASA by making an out-of-packet payment for private health care from accredited providers. Resources for FONASA to cover the cost of the AUGE plan come from a temporary increase in the consumer tax from 18% to 19%, a tobacco tax, customs revenues, and the sale of the state’s minority shares in public health enterprises. The AUGE Plan only takes up 23% of the general budget set aside for service provision. AUGE services are free for those in categories A and B. Enrollees in categories C and D must in principle pay a copayment equal to 20% of the cost of the service. After a yearly copayment limit based on income is reached, 100% of services are covered for those in categories C and D. To date, however, copayments have seldom been collected. ISAPRE funding stems from the 7% monthly enrollee income contribution. Beneficiaries are also free to make additional contributions in order to purchase additional coverage. ISAPREs spend ten times more on per capita administration than FONASA, and despite the better health of its enrollees, they spend two times more on health care services per member. The average copayment under the ISAPREs was 35% in 2004. Although ISAPREs enrolled 22% of the population in 2004 they accounted for 43% of all health expenditures. Part of the reason for the higher expenditures is that ISAPREs rely almost exclusively on private providers that have higher cost and prices compared to public providers. These prices can be maintained because ISAPRE beneficiaries perceive the quality of private providers to be superior to the quality of public providers that are financed by FONASA. Figure 1 highlights the primary financial flows within the Chilean health system. The top half of the figure includes the resource flows for FONASA and the bottom half demonstrates resource flows for ISAPREs.
National Health Fund (FONASA)Funding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax, Member contributions
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments Monthly beneficiary contributions make up one third of FONASA funding, while half of FONASAs resources come from national coffers. The remainder is made up of operating income and copayments. FONASA is progressive in its funding mechanisms. Government subsidies are well targeted, with 90% directed to the indigent and 7.5% directed to low-income individuals. Furthermore, between 32% and 40% of high-income earner contributions cross-subsidize care for poorer beneficiaries. Primary health is free for all who enroll with FONASA. Hospital and ambulatory care under the Institutional Modality, however, require copayments that are determined by the income group in which the patient is classified. Group A (the indigent) and B (low income) receive free care, while group C pays 10% of the cost of the service and group D pays 20%. When enrollees undergo three family health events that require medical attention, those in groups D or C are transferred to groups C and B respectively. Catastrophic Insurance under FONASA is fully covered for patients who elect the Institutional Modality in accredited public hospitals. Furthermore, under the Free Election Modality, FONASA beneficiaries in groups B, C, and D can obtain a partial voucher from FONASA by making an out-of-packet payment for private health care from accredited providers. Resources for FONASA to cover the cost of the AUGE plan come from a temporary increase in the consumer tax from 18% to 19%, a tobacco tax, customs revenues, and the sale of the state’s minority shares in public health enterprises. The AUGE Plan only takes up 23% of the general budget set aside for service provision. AUGE services are free for those in categories A and B. Enrollees in categories C and D must in principle pay a copayment equal to 20% of the cost of the service. After a yearly copayment limit based on income is reached, 100% of services are covered for those in categories C and D. To date, however, copayments have seldom been collected. ISAPRE funding stems from the 7% monthly enrollee income contribution. Beneficiaries are also free to make additional contributions in order to purchase additional coverage. ISAPREs spend ten times more on per capita administration than FONASA, and despite the better health of its enrollees, they spend two times more on health care services per member. The average copayment under the ISAPREs was 35% in 2004. Although ISAPREs enrolled 22% of the population in 2004 they accounted for 43% of all health expenditures. Part of the reason for the higher expenditures is that ISAPREs rely almost exclusively on private providers that have higher cost and prices compared to public providers. These prices can be maintained because ISAPRE beneficiaries perceive the quality of private providers to be superior to the quality of public providers that are financed by FONASA. Figure 1 highlights the primary financial flows within the Chilean health system. The top half of the figure includes the resource flows for FONASA and the bottom half demonstrates resource flows for ISAPREs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kenya: National Hospital Insurance Fund |
|
|
|
|
The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. Read full sectionThe National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. A new proposed measure has been gazetted in June 2010 that will see the first increase in premiums to the NHIF in almost two decades. This to between KES 150 to KES 2,000 per month, depending on income, with approximately 46,000 of the highest paid formal sector employees paying the maximum amount. Under this proposed change, premium payments for those in the informal sector would rise from KES 160 to KES 500 per month. Finally, under the proposed changes, other sectors of the government, development agencies, philanthropic organizations and other well-wishers would be able to purchase NHIF cover for indigent populations for a rate of KES 300 per person per month. Proposed changes are currently under judicial review and have not yet been implemented. NHIF funding and payments to providers exist alongside supply-side payments from the government directly to public sector providers. In essence, the salaries of most physicians and other health workers are still paid via supply-side payments, with NHIF payments typically going toward facility charges, drugs, supplies and consumables, and other types of overhead. Total health expenditure in Kenya, 2000 and 2006
Source: Kenya Ministry of Health, 2009 Overall, Kenya spends approximately 5% of its GDP on health. There are 3 major sources of financing for the health care system: the government (both central and local); private contributions; and donors. Donor contributions to the health sector have been steadily increasing from 8% of the health budget in 2000 to 36% in 2008. Traditionally, donor funding has been allocated directly to specific programs, limiting the flexibility of the MOH to reallocate donor assistance to fit government priorities. Public funding comes primarily from taxation, and allocations from the Ministry of Health (MOH), local governments, and parastatal organizations. Funding flows from the Ministry of Health (MOH) to the district level District Health Management Boards (DHMBs) and District Health Management Teams (DHMTs) and supplemented by local government, revolving funds, and user fees. Since the 1970s, the real financing allocations to the public sector have declined, and in 2008 the MOH only spent approximately USD $11.80 per capita, well below the WHO recommended spending level of USD $34 per capita. This lack of funding is largely because tax revenues have proven to be an unreliable source of health finance. To fill the funding gap, MOH has pursued a policy of cost sharing, which places a higher burden for financing on out-of-pocket expenditures in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the health budget. This poses a serious financing issue for the 56% of the population who are considered poor. In 2004, the government attempted to minimize cost sharing through the institution of a “10/20” policy, in which local health facilities only charge 10 or 20 KES for curative care; this has decreased out-of-pocket expenditures from 54% of THE in 2000 to about 36% in 2009. National Hospital Insurance FundFunding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding: Member contributions, Employer contributions
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. A new proposed measure has been gazetted in June 2010 that will see the first increase in premiums to the NHIF in almost two decades. This to between KES 150 to KES 2,000 per month, depending on income, with approximately 46,000 of the highest paid formal sector employees paying the maximum amount. Under this proposed change, premium payments for those in the informal sector would rise from KES 160 to KES 500 per month. Finally, under the proposed changes, other sectors of the government, development agencies, philanthropic organizations and other well-wishers would be able to purchase NHIF cover for indigent populations for a rate of KES 300 per person per month. Proposed changes are currently under judicial review and have not yet been implemented. NHIF funding and payments to providers exist alongside supply-side payments from the government directly to public sector providers. In essence, the salaries of most physicians and other health workers are still paid via supply-side payments, with NHIF payments typically going toward facility charges, drugs, supplies and consumables, and other types of overhead. Total health expenditure in Kenya, 2000 and 2006
Source: Kenya Ministry of Health, 2009 Overall, Kenya spends approximately 5% of its GDP on health. There are 3 major sources of financing for the health care system: the government (both central and local); private contributions; and donors. Donor contributions to the health sector have been steadily increasing from 8% of the health budget in 2000 to 36% in 2008. Traditionally, donor funding has been allocated directly to specific programs, limiting the flexibility of the MOH to reallocate donor assistance to fit government priorities. Public funding comes primarily from taxation, and allocations from the Ministry of Health (MOH), local governments, and parastatal organizations. Funding flows from the Ministry of Health (MOH) to the district level District Health Management Boards (DHMBs) and District Health Management Teams (DHMTs) and supplemented by local government, revolving funds, and user fees. Since the 1970s, the real financing allocations to the public sector have declined, and in 2008 the MOH only spent approximately USD $11.80 per capita, well below the WHO recommended spending level of USD $34 per capita. This lack of funding is largely because tax revenues have proven to be an unreliable source of health finance. To fill the funding gap, MOH has pursued a policy of cost sharing, which places a higher burden for financing on out-of-pocket expenditures in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the health budget. This poses a serious financing issue for the 56% of the population who are considered poor. In 2004, the government attempted to minimize cost sharing through the institution of a “10/20” policy, in which local health facilities only charge 10 or 20 KES for curative care; this has decreased out-of-pocket expenditures from 54% of THE in 2000 to about 36% in 2009. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Philippines: PhilHealth |
|
|
|
|
Funding for the scheme varies based on the population covered, although the majority of funds flow from general taxation. Premiums for the formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of monthly income. Premiums for both the poor and the informal sector are 1,200 pesos annually (about 25 USD). Read full sectionFunding for the scheme varies based on the population covered, although the majority of funds flow from general taxation. Premiums for the formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of monthly income. Premiums for both the poor and the informal sector are 1,200 pesos annually (about 25 USD). However, the cost of insurance for the poor is fully subsidized by the central and local governments. Funding by population is as follows:
Both national and local governments are responsible for the full subsidy for indigents. A recent policy proposal is for the national government to fully pay the subsidy in order to accelerate the efforts towards universal coverage by enrolling the poorest. However, this proposal has not been approved and the current cost-sharing scheme remains. Currently, the local government identifies and determines who is poor, then enrolls them in the national health insurance program. Once enrolled, the national government is expected to pay its counterpart. The central government cost-sharing percentage depends on the income level of the local government, but on average local governments contribute 25% and the national government contributes 75%. All premiums are pooled nationally and in effect, there is cross-subsidization across districts. The frequency of premium contributions varies by each population category. For example, formal sector payroll collections naturally occur monthly, while for the non-poor, premium contributions occur based on when individuals seek to enroll. For OFWs, the premium is collected upon departure from the country and then on an annual basis. For the poor subsidized by the government, enrollment occurs annually and the local government pays quarterly while the national government is billed as soon as enough local governments have enrolled their poor. National government payment is dependent on the availability of funds. Premiums for formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of the monthly income. However, the current level is 2.5%, applied up to the first 30,000 pesos of income (i.e., all people earning up to or more than 30,000 pesos pay the same premium, while people with salaries under 30,000 pesos pay less). The premium of 1,200 pesos annually for the poor and informal sector has been the same for more than 9 years. The rate for the OFWs was 900 pesos annually until two years ago when it was increased to 1,200 pesos. PhilHealthFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: Member contributions
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums Funding for the scheme varies based on the population covered, although the majority of funds flow from general taxation. Premiums for the formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of monthly income. Premiums for both the poor and the informal sector are 1,200 pesos annually (about 25 USD). However, the cost of insurance for the poor is fully subsidized by the central and local governments. Funding by population is as follows:
Both national and local governments are responsible for the full subsidy for indigents. A recent policy proposal is for the national government to fully pay the subsidy in order to accelerate the efforts towards universal coverage by enrolling the poorest. However, this proposal has not been approved and the current cost-sharing scheme remains. Currently, the local government identifies and determines who is poor, then enrolls them in the national health insurance program. Once enrolled, the national government is expected to pay its counterpart. The central government cost-sharing percentage depends on the income level of the local government, but on average local governments contribute 25% and the national government contributes 75%. All premiums are pooled nationally and in effect, there is cross-subsidization across districts. The frequency of premium contributions varies by each population category. For example, formal sector payroll collections naturally occur monthly, while for the non-poor, premium contributions occur based on when individuals seek to enroll. For OFWs, the premium is collected upon departure from the country and then on an annual basis. For the poor subsidized by the government, enrollment occurs annually and the local government pays quarterly while the national government is billed as soon as enough local governments have enrolled their poor. National government payment is dependent on the availability of funds. Premiums for formal sector are set by law to be up to 3% of the monthly income. However, the current level is 2.5%, applied up to the first 30,000 pesos of income (i.e., all people earning up to or more than 30,000 pesos pay the same premium, while people with salaries under 30,000 pesos pay less). The premium of 1,200 pesos annually for the poor and informal sector has been the same for more than 9 years. The rate for the OFWs was 900 pesos annually until two years ago when it was increased to 1,200 pesos. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mexico: Seguro Popular |
|
|
|
|
The SP is financed by the federal government, the state government, and enrollees. The federal and state governments fund a social solidarity contribution while enrolled families contribute a premium that is tied to income. Families in the two lowest income deciles and those in the third lowest decile with a child under five years of age are not required to contribute, conditional on their participation in health promotion activities. Annual family contributions range from $60 USD for families in the third lowest decile to $950 USD for families in the highest decile. Family premiums are collected at the state level, where they remain to be used to fund the essential benefits package. Read full sectionThe SP is financed by the federal government, the state government, and enrollees. The federal and state governments fund a social solidarity contribution while enrolled families contribute a premium that is tied to income. Families in the two lowest income deciles and those in the third lowest decile with a child under five years of age are not required to contribute, conditional on their participation in health promotion activities. Annual family contributions range from $60 USD for families in the third lowest decile to $950 USD for families in the highest decile. Family premiums are collected at the state level, where they remain to be used to fund the essential benefits package. Federal funding for the SP takes the form of two distinct contributions to the states—the social contribution and the solidarity contribution. The social contribution by the federal government is a fixed allocation per enrolled family and is periodically adjusted for inflation. The SP federal contribution comes from general taxes. The federal solidarity contribution is meant to redress the large differences in development between the states. It is 1.5 times the social contribution and is generally larger for poorer states. The solidarity contribution is based on a formula that considers a per family fixed component, a health-needs adjusted component, a component aimed at promoting additional state contributions, and a component based on health system performance. The goal of this resource transfer mechanism is to make up for historical imbalances and inequities, to respond to the needs of different population groups, and to provide incentives for performance and affiliation. The formula weights and the indicators used in the formula are updated annually. The state contribution is similar in all the states, equaling approximately half of the federal social contribution. The family contribution is determined on a sliding-scale, with the goal that no family should contribute more than a fair share based on its ability to pay. Ability to pay has been defined as disposable income, which is total household spending minus spending on food. The family contribution equals a fixed proportion of disposable income, with a maximum of 5%. Income deciles three through nine have a nominal contribution, while the tenth decile has two levels of contribution due to the variable nature of the income distribution. As of 2008, 97% of families made no premium contributions. Likewise, states have also failed to pay their full share of the premium.
The framework of the reform creates certain paradoxes in its implementation. The percentage of families that are eligible to enroll in SP varies by state. The population of the northern industrialized states tends to have high levels of social security membership, whereas the population of poor southern states tends to have low levels of social security membership. This means that poor states with weak tax-based incomes must enroll a much higher percentage of their population out of state coffers compared to rich states with stronger tax bases. This appears to perpetuate inequality in health care delivery on a geographical basis. Because poorer states have the largest proportion of both the poor and the uninsured, and because the state contributions to the SP are established on a per-enrolled family basis, poorer states have to make a higher contribution than wealthier states, leading to increased geographical inequity. Therefore, federal resources are based on both a per-enrolled family fee plus a solidarity supplement for poorer states to help mitigate some of the adverse budgetary effects that stem from a large population of poor households. The National Commission for Social Protection in Health (CNPSS) has established that states must target a maximum of 30% of their resources to purchase medications, 40% to contract personnel, and 20% for activities of health promotion, early detection, and prevention. Once the requirements for the transfer of resources have been met, funds are sent to the State Finances Secretariat. Before 2007, funds were transferred directly to the State Health Secretariats. The change was established due to the reporting requirements of the State Finance Secretariats, leading to increased transparency, as well as improving the registration and use of resources at the state level. Resources are transferred to the states every three months. Since 2004, resources transferred to the Social Health Protection System have increased by an average of 11.5% annually in real terms, thereby reducing the gap between IMSS health expenditures and the expenditures of the Ministry of Health.
From 2001 to 2003, the growth rate in per capita expenditures on public health for the uninsured population averaged 5.2%. Conversely, during the first few years of the reform from 2004 to 2006, this growth rate nearly doubled to 12.3% per year. From 2001 to 2006, public expenditure for the uninsured increased by 61% overall. Since the implementation of SP, public health expenditure increased from 43.8% of total health expenditure in 2002 to 46.4% in 2006. This trend of growing public health expenditures is expected to continue. Seguro PopularFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: Member contributions
Contributing Populations: Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums The SP is financed by the federal government, the state government, and enrollees. The federal and state governments fund a social solidarity contribution while enrolled families contribute a premium that is tied to income. Families in the two lowest income deciles and those in the third lowest decile with a child under five years of age are not required to contribute, conditional on their participation in health promotion activities. Annual family contributions range from $60 USD for families in the third lowest decile to $950 USD for families in the highest decile. Family premiums are collected at the state level, where they remain to be used to fund the essential benefits package. Federal funding for the SP takes the form of two distinct contributions to the states—the social contribution and the solidarity contribution. The social contribution by the federal government is a fixed allocation per enrolled family and is periodically adjusted for inflation. The SP federal contribution comes from general taxes. The federal solidarity contribution is meant to redress the large differences in development between the states. It is 1.5 times the social contribution and is generally larger for poorer states. The solidarity contribution is based on a formula that considers a per family fixed component, a health-needs adjusted component, a component aimed at promoting additional state contributions, and a component based on health system performance. The goal of this resource transfer mechanism is to make up for historical imbalances and inequities, to respond to the needs of different population groups, and to provide incentives for performance and affiliation. The formula weights and the indicators used in the formula are updated annually. The state contribution is similar in all the states, equaling approximately half of the federal social contribution. The family contribution is determined on a sliding-scale, with the goal that no family should contribute more than a fair share based on its ability to pay. Ability to pay has been defined as disposable income, which is total household spending minus spending on food. The family contribution equals a fixed proportion of disposable income, with a maximum of 5%. Income deciles three through nine have a nominal contribution, while the tenth decile has two levels of contribution due to the variable nature of the income distribution. As of 2008, 97% of families made no premium contributions. Likewise, states have also failed to pay their full share of the premium.
The framework of the reform creates certain paradoxes in its implementation. The percentage of families that are eligible to enroll in SP varies by state. The population of the northern industrialized states tends to have high levels of social security membership, whereas the population of poor southern states tends to have low levels of social security membership. This means that poor states with weak tax-based incomes must enroll a much higher percentage of their population out of state coffers compared to rich states with stronger tax bases. This appears to perpetuate inequality in health care delivery on a geographical basis. Because poorer states have the largest proportion of both the poor and the uninsured, and because the state contributions to the SP are established on a per-enrolled family basis, poorer states have to make a higher contribution than wealthier states, leading to increased geographical inequity. Therefore, federal resources are based on both a per-enrolled family fee plus a solidarity supplement for poorer states to help mitigate some of the adverse budgetary effects that stem from a large population of poor households. The National Commission for Social Protection in Health (CNPSS) has established that states must target a maximum of 30% of their resources to purchase medications, 40% to contract personnel, and 20% for activities of health promotion, early detection, and prevention. Once the requirements for the transfer of resources have been met, funds are sent to the State Finances Secretariat. Before 2007, funds were transferred directly to the State Health Secretariats. The change was established due to the reporting requirements of the State Finance Secretariats, leading to increased transparency, as well as improving the registration and use of resources at the state level. Resources are transferred to the states every three months. Since 2004, resources transferred to the Social Health Protection System have increased by an average of 11.5% annually in real terms, thereby reducing the gap between IMSS health expenditures and the expenditures of the Ministry of Health.
From 2001 to 2003, the growth rate in per capita expenditures on public health for the uninsured population averaged 5.2%. Conversely, during the first few years of the reform from 2004 to 2006, this growth rate nearly doubled to 12.3% per year. From 2001 to 2006, public expenditure for the uninsured increased by 61% overall. Since the implementation of SP, public health expenditure increased from 43.8% of total health expenditure in 2002 to 46.4% in 2006. This trend of growing public health expenditures is expected to continue. |
