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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Korea, Rep.: National Health Insurance Program |
|
|
|
|
The National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges.The National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges. Premium contributions are proportional to income and are shared equally between the insured individual and the employer. For the self-employed, premiums are calculated based on their income level in conjunction with the person’s property, motor vehicles, age and gender. There is a reduced contribution requirement for those who live on islands and remote areas and those serving in the military are exempt from paying premiums. Read full sectionThe National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges.The National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges. Premium contributions are proportional to income and are shared equally between the insured individual and the employer. For the self-employed, premiums are calculated based on their income level in conjunction with the person’s property, motor vehicles, age and gender. There is a reduced contribution requirement for those who live on islands and remote areas and those serving in the military are exempt from paying premiums. The National Government provides 14% of the total annual projected revenue of the NHIP. In addition, the government has a tobacco surcharge that contributes about 6% of the total annual projected revenue to the health insurance program. National Health Insurance ProgramFunding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments The National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges.The National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) has 3 sources of funding: monthly premium contributions from the insured and employers; government subsidies; and tobacco surcharges. Premium contributions are proportional to income and are shared equally between the insured individual and the employer. For the self-employed, premiums are calculated based on their income level in conjunction with the person’s property, motor vehicles, age and gender. There is a reduced contribution requirement for those who live on islands and remote areas and those serving in the military are exempt from paying premiums. The National Government provides 14% of the total annual projected revenue of the NHIP. In addition, the government has a tobacco surcharge that contributes about 6% of the total annual projected revenue to the health insurance program. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| India: RSBY |
|
|
|
|
RSBY is funded by the central and state governments through general tax revenue. The insurance premium is determined at the state-level and varies from state to state and district to district in the range of Rs. 400 (USD8) to Rs. 600 (USD12). Beneficiaries also pay a small amount (Rs. 30, less than one US dollar) as a registration fee, which is used to cover certain administrative costs associated with scheme. Read full sectionRSBY is funded by the central and state governments through general tax revenue. The insurance premium is determined at the state-level and varies from state to state and district to district in the range of Rs. 400 (USD8) to Rs. 600 (USD12). Beneficiaries also pay a small amount (Rs. 30, less than one US dollar) as a registration fee, which is used to cover certain administrative costs associated with scheme. Funding from central and state governments is divided as follows:
The insurance premium is determined at the state-level based on an open tender process. Indian Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) registered insurers compete in competitive bidding; the organization that fulfils technical criteria and has the lowest premium is chosen. The state and central governments pay the agreed upon premium to the insurance company commensurate with the number of BPL families enrolled. The insurer bears all the risk of the scheme and though the state governments provide support to the insurer(s), it is the responsibility of the insurer to operationalize the scheme on the ground. RSBYFunding Primary Source of Funding: General government revenues
Secondary Source of Funding: None
Contributing Populations: Below Poverty Line
Types of Contributions: Registration Fees RSBY is funded by the central and state governments through general tax revenue. The insurance premium is determined at the state-level and varies from state to state and district to district in the range of Rs. 400 (USD8) to Rs. 600 (USD12). Beneficiaries also pay a small amount (Rs. 30, less than one US dollar) as a registration fee, which is used to cover certain administrative costs associated with scheme. Funding from central and state governments is divided as follows:
The insurance premium is determined at the state-level based on an open tender process. Indian Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) registered insurers compete in competitive bidding; the organization that fulfils technical criteria and has the lowest premium is chosen. The state and central governments pay the agreed upon premium to the insurance company commensurate with the number of BPL families enrolled. The insurer bears all the risk of the scheme and though the state governments provide support to the insurer(s), it is the responsibility of the insurer to operationalize the scheme on the ground. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
