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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
