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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estonia: Estonian Health Insurance Fund |
|
|
|
Estonian health care is funded through a Social Health Insurance regime where contributions are paid by salaried and self-employed workers, who contribute 13% of their wages to the system. The earmarked payroll tax is collected by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the EHIF. This system has a strong element of solidarity, as 46% of enrollees are non-contributing members and are subsidized by those who contribute. All enrollees are entitled to the same benefits package. Read full sectionEstonian health care is funded through a Social Health Insurance regime where contributions are paid by salaried and self-employed workers, who contribute 13% of their wages to the system. The earmarked payroll tax is collected by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the EHIF. This system has a strong element of solidarity, as 46% of enrollees are non-contributing members and are subsidized by those who contribute. All enrollees are entitled to the same benefits package. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund is the primary financing entity. It is responsible for pooling funds, contracting with service providers, reimbursing health services and pharmaceuticals, and reimbursing sick leave and maternity benefits. In 2006, approximately 20% of EHIF expenditures went toward cash benefits such as health related work incapacity compensation, as well as dental care and prescription reimbursements. In the same year, approximately 70% of expenditures went toward payment of services such as preventative and curative health and pharmaceuticals and medical devices. EHIF also funds disease prevention and health promotion programs. Funds are disbursed to the four regional EHIF offices on a per capita basis based on the number of insured in the region. The per capita payments for primary care are adjusted based on the age structure of the region, but payments for all other health services are not adjusted. Once the regional EHIF offices receive their funds, they have some flexibility in their allocation. This is especially useful, as the planning of health service provider contracts is conducted by the regional offices. The EHIF is liable for all of its obligations, so it cannot declare bankruptcy. However, if social health insurance revenues are lower than budgeted, the state becomes responsible for the shortfall. Also, if the government establishes prices such that the EHIF cannot meet its contractual obligations, then the state becomes responsible. In order to ensure solvency, the EHIF has a cash reserve to manage daily cash flows, a legal reserve to decrease the risk of macroeconomic changes, equivalent to 6% of the budget, and a risk reserve to ensure that health insurance obligations are met, equivalent to 2% of the budget. EHIF revenues have exceeded expenditures every year since the reforms except 1999, when an economic crisis significantly reduced revenues.
Out-of-Pocket payments have been the most rapidly increasing sources of financing, increasing from 7.5% of total health financing in 1995 to 24% in 2006. OOP payments flow mainly toward cost sharing for EHIF benefits, payments for services outside of the EHIF benefits package, payments to non-EHIF providers, and to informal payments. However, the primary reason for the increase in OOP has been the dual increase in pharmaceutical use and dental care expenditures that are not a part of the benefits package. Table 1: Share of Primary Sources of Health Care Financing (1995-2006)
Source: Ministry of Social Affairs, 1999-2006 There are no copayments for family doctor visits, but other services have small copayments. Prescription drugs normally have a deductible as well as a coinsurance of percentage. Flat small copayments are charged on family doctor home visits, outpatient care visits, and hospital bed days. There has been a gradual move toward an elimination of patient cost sharing for primary care. Outpatient specialist care has a maximum consultation fee, but providers can choose to charge any amount up to the maximum. Inpatient care providers can charge a per diem rate (maximum is set by EHIF) for up to ten days. However, inpatient child care, pregnancies, and emergency care are exempt from this per diem rate. Estonian Health Insurance FundFunding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding:
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments Estonian health care is funded through a Social Health Insurance regime where contributions are paid by salaried and self-employed workers, who contribute 13% of their wages to the system. The earmarked payroll tax is collected by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the EHIF. This system has a strong element of solidarity, as 46% of enrollees are non-contributing members and are subsidized by those who contribute. All enrollees are entitled to the same benefits package. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund is the primary financing entity. It is responsible for pooling funds, contracting with service providers, reimbursing health services and pharmaceuticals, and reimbursing sick leave and maternity benefits. In 2006, approximately 20% of EHIF expenditures went toward cash benefits such as health related work incapacity compensation, as well as dental care and prescription reimbursements. In the same year, approximately 70% of expenditures went toward payment of services such as preventative and curative health and pharmaceuticals and medical devices. EHIF also funds disease prevention and health promotion programs. Funds are disbursed to the four regional EHIF offices on a per capita basis based on the number of insured in the region. The per capita payments for primary care are adjusted based on the age structure of the region, but payments for all other health services are not adjusted. Once the regional EHIF offices receive their funds, they have some flexibility in their allocation. This is especially useful, as the planning of health service provider contracts is conducted by the regional offices. The EHIF is liable for all of its obligations, so it cannot declare bankruptcy. However, if social health insurance revenues are lower than budgeted, the state becomes responsible for the shortfall. Also, if the government establishes prices such that the EHIF cannot meet its contractual obligations, then the state becomes responsible. In order to ensure solvency, the EHIF has a cash reserve to manage daily cash flows, a legal reserve to decrease the risk of macroeconomic changes, equivalent to 6% of the budget, and a risk reserve to ensure that health insurance obligations are met, equivalent to 2% of the budget. EHIF revenues have exceeded expenditures every year since the reforms except 1999, when an economic crisis significantly reduced revenues.
Out-of-Pocket payments have been the most rapidly increasing sources of financing, increasing from 7.5% of total health financing in 1995 to 24% in 2006. OOP payments flow mainly toward cost sharing for EHIF benefits, payments for services outside of the EHIF benefits package, payments to non-EHIF providers, and to informal payments. However, the primary reason for the increase in OOP has been the dual increase in pharmaceutical use and dental care expenditures that are not a part of the benefits package. Table 1: Share of Primary Sources of Health Care Financing (1995-2006)
Source: Ministry of Social Affairs, 1999-2006 There are no copayments for family doctor visits, but other services have small copayments. Prescription drugs normally have a deductible as well as a coinsurance of percentage. Flat small copayments are charged on family doctor home visits, outpatient care visits, and hospital bed days. There has been a gradual move toward an elimination of patient cost sharing for primary care. Outpatient specialist care has a maximum consultation fee, but providers can choose to charge any amount up to the maximum. Inpatient care providers can charge a per diem rate (maximum is set by EHIF) for up to ten days. However, inpatient child care, pregnancies, and emergency care are exempt from this per diem rate. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Colombia: General System of Social Security in Health |
|
|
|
|
Two different funding streams for insurance currently exist within the Colombian health system. The Contributive Regime (CR) relies on wage contributions for its sustainability. The Subsidized Regime (SR), however, relies on three distinct funding mechanisms. Read full sectionTwo different funding streams for insurance currently exist within the Colombian health system. The Contributive Regime (CR) relies on wage contributions for its sustainability. The Subsidized Regime (SR), however, relies on three distinct funding mechanisms. Under the CR, employees and the self-employed (informal workers above a set income threshold) pay 12.5% of their salaries to EPSs, which are then responsible for transferring the funds to FOSYGA. In turn, FOSYGA remits a UPC back to the EPS to cover the premium of the insured. The UPC initially adjusted risk based on three variables: age, gender, and geographic location. The premium and risk adjusters are modified yearly by the National Board of Health Social Security (CNSSS). By 2006 the board had introduced risk adjusters for End-Stage Renal Disease and other adjusters have been introduced since. When patients receive services, the EPS handles all payment transactions with the exception of copayments. From 2007 to 2008, CR revenues increased by 12.75%, which indicates an expansion of the CR and a move toward greater coverage. There are three primary funding mechanisms for the SR: 1) national transfers from general taxation providing for 48% of SR resources, 2) solidarity contributions from the CR that are transferred by FOSYGA providing for 40%, and 3) district and municipal efforts providing for 11% of SR funds. National transfers are pooled under the Subsidized Regime’s System of General Participation (SGP) which is responsible for allocating resources to the different districts and municipalities across the country. The solidarity contribution from the CR is transferred by FOSYGA directly to the municipalities. The municipality then transfers the UPC to an EPSS of the patient’s choosing. In 1997 there were over 200 EPSS, but by 2005 there were only 43 EPSS, of which 28% were private for profit, 16% were private not-for-profit, 14% were public, 36% were community based, and 6% were for indigenous populations. The subsidized regime UPC is approximately 60% of the contributing regime UPC, which is in line with the reduced number of services offered within the SR. As with EPSs, the EPSS is responsible for payment transactions with service providers for their members. Finally, supply-side subsidies to public hospitals/providers and public health programs are paid for by national transfers from general taxes. These funds flow into the SGP, which is then responsible for their disbursement. General System of Social Security in HealthFunding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding: General government revenues, Employer contributions
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments Two different funding streams for insurance currently exist within the Colombian health system. The Contributive Regime (CR) relies on wage contributions for its sustainability. The Subsidized Regime (SR), however, relies on three distinct funding mechanisms. Under the CR, employees and the self-employed (informal workers above a set income threshold) pay 12.5% of their salaries to EPSs, which are then responsible for transferring the funds to FOSYGA. In turn, FOSYGA remits a UPC back to the EPS to cover the premium of the insured. The UPC initially adjusted risk based on three variables: age, gender, and geographic location. The premium and risk adjusters are modified yearly by the National Board of Health Social Security (CNSSS). By 2006 the board had introduced risk adjusters for End-Stage Renal Disease and other adjusters have been introduced since. When patients receive services, the EPS handles all payment transactions with the exception of copayments. From 2007 to 2008, CR revenues increased by 12.75%, which indicates an expansion of the CR and a move toward greater coverage. There are three primary funding mechanisms for the SR: 1) national transfers from general taxation providing for 48% of SR resources, 2) solidarity contributions from the CR that are transferred by FOSYGA providing for 40%, and 3) district and municipal efforts providing for 11% of SR funds. National transfers are pooled under the Subsidized Regime’s System of General Participation (SGP) which is responsible for allocating resources to the different districts and municipalities across the country. The solidarity contribution from the CR is transferred by FOSYGA directly to the municipalities. The municipality then transfers the UPC to an EPSS of the patient’s choosing. In 1997 there were over 200 EPSS, but by 2005 there were only 43 EPSS, of which 28% were private for profit, 16% were private not-for-profit, 14% were public, 36% were community based, and 6% were for indigenous populations. The subsidized regime UPC is approximately 60% of the contributing regime UPC, which is in line with the reduced number of services offered within the SR. As with EPSs, the EPSS is responsible for payment transactions with service providers for their members. Finally, supply-side subsidies to public hospitals/providers and public health programs are paid for by national transfers from general taxes. These funds flow into the SGP, which is then responsible for their disbursement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kyrgyz Republic: Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) |
|
|
|
|
Premiums for the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) are paid by different entities depending on the status of the enrollee. The payroll tax is set at 2% for those employed and is payable by employers. Farmers pay 5% of their land tax as their contribution to the health fund. Finally, pensioners and the unemployed have their contribution paid for by the pension and unemployment insurance funds. This contribution equals 1.5 times the minimum wage. The MHIF is the sole purchasing agency for health services within the Kyrgyz health system. Read full sectionPremiums for the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) are paid by different entities depending on the status of the enrollee. The payroll tax is set at 2% for those employed and is payable by employers. Farmers pay 5% of their land tax as their contribution to the health fund. Finally, pensioners and the unemployed have their contribution paid for by the pension and unemployment insurance funds. This contribution equals 1.5 times the minimum wage. The MHIF is the sole purchasing agency for health services within the Kyrgyz health system. Table 2: Population coverage and funding sources
Source: Jakab, M. Copayments are regulated in the State Guaranteed Benefits Package (SGBP). The SGBP was the primary instrument used to address the problem of informal payments. Copayments were introduced in two oblasts starting in 2001 and were henceforth expanded gradually to the entire country through 2004, when all oblasts conformed to the same system. The destination of the copayment revenues is regulated; 20% can go toward complementing personnel salaries and 80% must go towards inputs such as medicines, supplies, and food. The majority of copayments are used for the purchase of medicines and supplies, functioning as additional revenue for hospitals to fund their variable costs. Copayments vary with insurance status, exemption status, case type (delivery, surgery, medicine), and referral status. Populations with high expected use of the health care system qualify for two copayment exemptions. The first is based on social characteristics and was intended to target vulnerable groups such as war veterans, the elderly, and the disabled. The second is based on groups with certain medical conditions with high externalities such as tuberculosis, AIDS, syphilis, and polio. Both of these groups are exempt from any fees. Hospitals are also required to set aside 10% of all copayment funds in order to cover services for the very poor that are uninsured. This process was initiated voluntarily by health providers to support the most vulnerable populations. Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF)Funding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Co-payments Premiums for the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) are paid by different entities depending on the status of the enrollee. The payroll tax is set at 2% for those employed and is payable by employers. Farmers pay 5% of their land tax as their contribution to the health fund. Finally, pensioners and the unemployed have their contribution paid for by the pension and unemployment insurance funds. This contribution equals 1.5 times the minimum wage. The MHIF is the sole purchasing agency for health services within the Kyrgyz health system. Table 2: Population coverage and funding sources
Source: Jakab, M. Copayments are regulated in the State Guaranteed Benefits Package (SGBP). The SGBP was the primary instrument used to address the problem of informal payments. Copayments were introduced in two oblasts starting in 2001 and were henceforth expanded gradually to the entire country through 2004, when all oblasts conformed to the same system. The destination of the copayment revenues is regulated; 20% can go toward complementing personnel salaries and 80% must go towards inputs such as medicines, supplies, and food. The majority of copayments are used for the purchase of medicines and supplies, functioning as additional revenue for hospitals to fund their variable costs. Copayments vary with insurance status, exemption status, case type (delivery, surgery, medicine), and referral status. Populations with high expected use of the health care system qualify for two copayment exemptions. The first is based on social characteristics and was intended to target vulnerable groups such as war veterans, the elderly, and the disabled. The second is based on groups with certain medical conditions with high externalities such as tuberculosis, AIDS, syphilis, and polio. Both of these groups are exempt from any fees. Hospitals are also required to set aside 10% of all copayment funds in order to cover services for the very poor that are uninsured. This process was initiated voluntarily by health providers to support the most vulnerable populations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brazil: Unified Health System (SUS) |
|
Federal resources originating in a pool of value-added, general income, financial operations and insurance, export, and import taxes flow into the National Health Fund (NHF), which then funnels resources in five separate directions. First, the NHF transfers resources to both the State Health Funds (SHF) and the Municipal Health Funds (MHF), which are responsible for consolidating resources from the different sources. Second, the NHF transfers resources to public and private hospitals, public and private health care providers, and to special health programs such as the PSF. The same type of resource re-allocation occurs at both the state and municipal levels, with the following exceptions. (1) The State Health Fund only transfers resources to the Municipal Health Fund, and (2) the Municipal Health Fund does not transfer resources to any other administrative bodies. The Health Secretariats at both the State and Municipal levels oversee the administration of funds provided by the different sources. Read full sectionFederal resources originating in a pool of value-added, general income, financial operations and insurance, export, and import taxes flow into the National Health Fund (NHF), which then funnels resources in five separate directions. First, the NHF transfers resources to both the State Health Funds (SHF) and the Municipal Health Funds (MHF), which are responsible for consolidating resources from the different sources. Second, the NHF transfers resources to public and private hospitals, public and private health care providers, and to special health programs such as the PSF. The same type of resource re-allocation occurs at both the state and municipal levels, with the following exceptions. (1) The State Health Fund only transfers resources to the Municipal Health Fund, and (2) the Municipal Health Fund does not transfer resources to any other administrative bodies. The Health Secretariats at both the State and Municipal levels oversee the administration of funds provided by the different sources.
Funding of the SUS takes place through a variety of resource streams. In 2001, federal funds were transferred to municipalities through 78 different mechanisms and programs, which were linked to particular administrative requirements, as well as planning and control instruments. Some of these mechanisms pay for production, while others pay for coverage on a per capita basis. Individuals have argued that such a system could lead to high transaction costs. Indeed, a recent study found that in 2007, private insurance and commercial plans allocated 81% of their revenue for the payment of medical services, whereas the Ministry of Health allocated only 66% of its resources to such an end. There are five primary funding mechanisms through which the National Health Fund channels resources for services rendered under the SUS.
Between 1985 and 1996, federal financing for public health fell from 73% to 54% of public resources for health. Meanwhile, municipalities augmented their total share of national health costs from 9% to 28%, while states remained at 18%. During this same time period, looking at the responsibility for spending those resources, the federal share fell from 67% to 46%, while that of the municipalities increased from 10% to 35%. In other words, there has been a clear progression towards municipal responsibility for both the mobilization and utilization of resources. In 2001, a constitutional amendment declared that federal funds must be allocated in an amount equal to the prior year’s budget, adjusted for GNP, starting with the 1999 budget as a reference. Furthermore, the amendment stipulated that states and municipalities must increase their health spending until it reaches 12% of the state budget and 15% of the municipal budget. However, the amendment did not define what could and could not be considered an expense. Therefore, state and local governments began including expenses such as food stamps and care for prisoners that had previously been accounted for elsewhere. Thus it is difficult to ascertain which municipalities and states actually increased public health activities and attempted to improve the delivery of care. Funding for the Family Health Program (PSF) by the national government consisted of a flat, one-time transfer for establishing a new PSF team. Thereafter, variable transfers are meant to incentivize continuous expansion of coverage. Table II highlights the incentives in place for the expansion of the PSF in 2002. Table 1: Financial Incentives for the Family Health Program
Source: La Forgia, G. (This incentive model was in place during the first 10 years of the Family Health Program. It is no longer in use.) The Brazilian health system also has a sizable private health sector known as the Supplementary Health System (SHS). Since 1988, consumption of private health insurance has grown substantially— particularly among the middle class—with private spending rising faster than public spending. Income tax breaks that compensate for private expenses on health care account for some of this growth. Unified Health System (SUS)Funding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding:
Contributing Populations:
Types of Contributions: Federal resources originating in a pool of value-added, general income, financial operations and insurance, export, and import taxes flow into the National Health Fund (NHF), which then funnels resources in five separate directions. First, the NHF transfers resources to both the State Health Funds (SHF) and the Municipal Health Funds (MHF), which are responsible for consolidating resources from the different sources. Second, the NHF transfers resources to public and private hospitals, public and private health care providers, and to special health programs such as the PSF. The same type of resource re-allocation occurs at both the state and municipal levels, with the following exceptions. (1) The State Health Fund only transfers resources to the Municipal Health Fund, and (2) the Municipal Health Fund does not transfer resources to any other administrative bodies. The Health Secretariats at both the State and Municipal levels oversee the administration of funds provided by the different sources.
Funding of the SUS takes place through a variety of resource streams. In 2001, federal funds were transferred to municipalities through 78 different mechanisms and programs, which were linked to particular administrative requirements, as well as planning and control instruments. Some of these mechanisms pay for production, while others pay for coverage on a per capita basis. Individuals have argued that such a system could lead to high transaction costs. Indeed, a recent study found that in 2007, private insurance and commercial plans allocated 81% of their revenue for the payment of medical services, whereas the Ministry of Health allocated only 66% of its resources to such an end. There are five primary funding mechanisms through which the National Health Fund channels resources for services rendered under the SUS.
Between 1985 and 1996, federal financing for public health fell from 73% to 54% of public resources for health. Meanwhile, municipalities augmented their total share of national health costs from 9% to 28%, while states remained at 18%. During this same time period, looking at the responsibility for spending those resources, the federal share fell from 67% to 46%, while that of the municipalities increased from 10% to 35%. In other words, there has been a clear progression towards municipal responsibility for both the mobilization and utilization of resources. In 2001, a constitutional amendment declared that federal funds must be allocated in an amount equal to the prior year’s budget, adjusted for GNP, starting with the 1999 budget as a reference. Furthermore, the amendment stipulated that states and municipalities must increase their health spending until it reaches 12% of the state budget and 15% of the municipal budget. However, the amendment did not define what could and could not be considered an expense. Therefore, state and local governments began including expenses such as food stamps and care for prisoners that had previously been accounted for elsewhere. Thus it is difficult to ascertain which municipalities and states actually increased public health activities and attempted to improve the delivery of care. Funding for the Family Health Program (PSF) by the national government consisted of a flat, one-time transfer for establishing a new PSF team. Thereafter, variable transfers are meant to incentivize continuous expansion of coverage. Table II highlights the incentives in place for the expansion of the PSF in 2002. Table 1: Financial Incentives for the Family Health Program
Source: La Forgia, G. (This incentive model was in place during the first 10 years of the Family Health Program. It is no longer in use.) The Brazilian health system also has a sizable private health sector known as the Supplementary Health System (SHS). Since 1988, consumption of private health insurance has grown substantially— particularly among the middle class—with private spending rising faster than public spending. Income tax breaks that compensate for private expenses on health care account for some of this growth. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thailand: Universal Coverage Scheme |
|
|
|
The Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) is financed through general tax revenues paid to local contracting units on the basis of population size. The UCS reform raised public health spending from about 66.25 billion Baht in 2000-01 to 72.78 billion Baht in 2001-02. In recent years, the government has responded to criticisms claiming that UCS is underfinanced by raising the budget for the scheme. Read full sectionThe Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) is financed through general tax revenues paid to local contracting units on the basis of population size. The UCS reform raised public health spending from about 66.25 billion Baht in 2000-01 to 72.78 billion Baht in 2001-02. In recent years, the government has responded to criticisms claiming that UCS is underfinanced by raising the budget for the scheme. General tax revenue was decided as the source of funding for the UCS because of the political urgency and focus on nationwide scale-up. The target population for the scheme is largely in the informal, agricultural sector and does do not have access to consistent cash income for any kind of regular premium payment, therefore making premium collection difficult. A copayment of Baht 30 was also implemented. This copayment was exempted for low income people, children below 12 years old and the elderly (i.e., those above 60 years old). While this copayment did not reflect the marginal cost of interventions, it did prevent overuse. The 30 Baht copayment was abolished in November 2006 for political reasons. However, abolition of the 30 Baht copayment had no effect on overall utilization of out-patient services. This is likely because the majority of beneficiaries have been already exempted from the copayment. The UCS reform raised public health spending from about 66.25 billion Baht in 2000-01 to 72.78 billion Baht in 2001-02. Thus, the reform cost US $175 million. The overall budget for UCS has increased to 82.02 billion (18%) and 91.36 billion (10%) in the years 2006 and 2007 respectively. Co-financing arrangements for the scheme are currently being considered—for example, one proposal suggests partial or non-subsidization of medical care costs for beneficiaries who decide to stay in a private room. Universal Coverage SchemeFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: None
Contributing Populations:
Types of Contributions: None The Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) is financed through general tax revenues paid to local contracting units on the basis of population size. The UCS reform raised public health spending from about 66.25 billion Baht in 2000-01 to 72.78 billion Baht in 2001-02. In recent years, the government has responded to criticisms claiming that UCS is underfinanced by raising the budget for the scheme. General tax revenue was decided as the source of funding for the UCS because of the political urgency and focus on nationwide scale-up. The target population for the scheme is largely in the informal, agricultural sector and does do not have access to consistent cash income for any kind of regular premium payment, therefore making premium collection difficult. A copayment of Baht 30 was also implemented. This copayment was exempted for low income people, children below 12 years old and the elderly (i.e., those above 60 years old). While this copayment did not reflect the marginal cost of interventions, it did prevent overuse. The 30 Baht copayment was abolished in November 2006 for political reasons. However, abolition of the 30 Baht copayment had no effect on overall utilization of out-patient services. This is likely because the majority of beneficiaries have been already exempted from the copayment. The UCS reform raised public health spending from about 66.25 billion Baht in 2000-01 to 72.78 billion Baht in 2001-02. Thus, the reform cost US $175 million. The overall budget for UCS has increased to 82.02 billion (18%) and 91.36 billion (10%) in the years 2006 and 2007 respectively. Co-financing arrangements for the scheme are currently being considered—for example, one proposal suggests partial or non-subsidization of medical care costs for beneficiaries who decide to stay in a private room. |
