UHC Forward: Towards Universal Health Coverage

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.

Aarogyasri is funded through general tax revenues generated by the state of Andhra Pradesh and the cost of premiums is fully subsidized for each beneficiary.

The state chose to fully cover the cost of insurance premiums as the administrative costs of collecting the premium would outweigh the total cost of the premium itself. In addition, the state wanted to ensure that the benefits of the scheme reached the poorest, who might otherwise be deterred from enrolling even if the premium to be paid out-of-pocket was nominal.

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.

1. Direct payment to service providers by the MOH. These are reimbursements for costs assumed by private and public providers. This is done in a fashion similar to the Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs) in the US. Such remuneration can be affiliated with hospitalizations and ambulatory costs incurred by SUS-associated providers.
2. Direct transfer to states or municipalities that are fully managed by the SUS for hospitalizations or ambulatory care. Such transfers are based on prior budgets and on future costs agreed to between states, municipalities and the federal government. The MOH also transfers funds for complex procedures like organ transplants and surgeries.
3. Transfers to special programs for health promotion and disease prevention. These programs include tuberculosis and diabetes.
4. Transfers to states for activities within the municipalities associated with payments for special medications for patients with chronic diseases, sanitation, and for programs such as PSF.
5. Direct transfers to municipalities for basic health activities. These transfers include per capita payments for the financing of the basic health program (PAB), the PSF, the PACS, nutritional programs, and contagious diseases programs.

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.