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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rwanda: Mutuelles de Sante |
|
|
|
|
Rwanda has developed a comprehensive financing framework for health care that includes risk pooling, cross-subsidies, and substantial support from donors, NGOs, and tax-generated funding from the formal sector. In the Mutuelle system, funding is comprised of annual member premiums organized on a per household basis, with an annual payment of 1000 Rwandan francs (equivalent of approximately US$1.80) per family member, and a 10% service fee paid up-front for each visit to a health center or hospital. Read full sectionRwanda has developed a comprehensive financing framework for health care that includes risk pooling, cross-subsidies, and substantial support from donors, NGOs, and tax-generated funding from the formal sector. In the Mutuelle system, funding is comprised of annual member premiums organized on a per household basis, with an annual payment of 1000 Rwandan francs (equivalent of approximately US$1.80) per family member, and a 10% service fee paid up-front for each visit to a health center or hospital. When a citizen cannot pay the premium up-front, microfinance institutions from community banks (Banques Populaires) provide individual loans to be repaid within a year of disbursement with 15% interest. Due to the high degree of poverty in Rwanda, the poorest individuals, as determined by community leaders, along with those infected with HIV/AIDs, are not required to pay the membership or service fees, rather their fees are subsidized by district and nationally organized solidarity funds financed primarily by the central government and external aid partners. A total of 1.5 million individuals enrolled in Mutuelles are subsidized by these funds.
Funding for the insurance scheme is coordinated at the central, district, and local levels. At the central level, two bodies exist to coordinate funding: the National Health Insurance Fund and the National Guarantee Fund of the Mutuelles. Financing for both these Funds comes primarily from external aid partners and the Central Government, though MMI, RAMA, and Mutuelle branches provide a small percentage of the financing as well. A substantial amount of funding for the National Funds comes from 16 bilateral and multi-lateral donors and external aid partners: approximately $700 million per year or a third of the central government’s total health spending. Though donor funds are generally funneled through the national Funds, some donors channel funds through NGOs. These funds are largely earmarked for specific purposed such as Tuberculosis, Malaria, and HIV/AIDS, rather than the national care system. The ear-marking of funds and diversion through third parties creates administrative challenges to the central government and often skews the focus of the health system, by placing an emphasis on disease-specific care. The National Funds allocate and disburse funds to the sector and district level Mutuelle solidarity funds through block transfers to the district and sector level Mutuelle bodies as well as separately providing other subsidies to sector level solidarity funds for coverage of indigent Mutuelle members. The National Funds also reimburse two national referral teaching hospitals and one psychiatric hospital for care of Mutuelle members who are referred by district hospitals. At the district level, a district Mutuelle acts as a risk-pooling mechanism for all Mutuelles in the district and acts to reimburse the costs of district hospital care for the Mutuelle members referred by local health centers. Several sources contribute to the district Mutuelle funds: the National Guarantee Fund of Mutuelles, the sector level Mutuelle organizations, the district, and external partners. At the sector level, the Mutuelles perform a risk-pooling function for high-risk events at the sector level. Sector level Mutuelles are financed primarily by user fees, while the rest of the fees are from NGOs and development partners, interest generated from their bank accounts, and the Government of Rwanda to co-finance and subsidize membership fees. The government sponsored program Rwanda Health Insurance Scheme (La Rwandaise d’Assurance Maladie or RAMA) is financed by monthly contributions of 15% of the member’s base salary with the employer paying 7.5% and the employee paying the difference. Members of the government sponsored Military Medical Insurance (MMI) contribute 5% of their base salary and the government adds 17.5% of the members’ base salary. Beneficiaries also contribute a 15% direct co-payment for services and pharmacies. The table below summarizes the recipients of donor aid for health in Rwanda:
Mutuelles de SanteFunding Primary Source of Funding: Member contributions
Secondary Source of Funding: General government revenues, Donor funding
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments Rwanda has developed a comprehensive financing framework for health care that includes risk pooling, cross-subsidies, and substantial support from donors, NGOs, and tax-generated funding from the formal sector. In the Mutuelle system, funding is comprised of annual member premiums organized on a per household basis, with an annual payment of 1000 Rwandan francs (equivalent of approximately US$1.80) per family member, and a 10% service fee paid up-front for each visit to a health center or hospital. When a citizen cannot pay the premium up-front, microfinance institutions from community banks (Banques Populaires) provide individual loans to be repaid within a year of disbursement with 15% interest. Due to the high degree of poverty in Rwanda, the poorest individuals, as determined by community leaders, along with those infected with HIV/AIDs, are not required to pay the membership or service fees, rather their fees are subsidized by district and nationally organized solidarity funds financed primarily by the central government and external aid partners. A total of 1.5 million individuals enrolled in Mutuelles are subsidized by these funds.
Funding for the insurance scheme is coordinated at the central, district, and local levels. At the central level, two bodies exist to coordinate funding: the National Health Insurance Fund and the National Guarantee Fund of the Mutuelles. Financing for both these Funds comes primarily from external aid partners and the Central Government, though MMI, RAMA, and Mutuelle branches provide a small percentage of the financing as well. A substantial amount of funding for the National Funds comes from 16 bilateral and multi-lateral donors and external aid partners: approximately $700 million per year or a third of the central government’s total health spending. Though donor funds are generally funneled through the national Funds, some donors channel funds through NGOs. These funds are largely earmarked for specific purposed such as Tuberculosis, Malaria, and HIV/AIDS, rather than the national care system. The ear-marking of funds and diversion through third parties creates administrative challenges to the central government and often skews the focus of the health system, by placing an emphasis on disease-specific care. The National Funds allocate and disburse funds to the sector and district level Mutuelle solidarity funds through block transfers to the district and sector level Mutuelle bodies as well as separately providing other subsidies to sector level solidarity funds for coverage of indigent Mutuelle members. The National Funds also reimburse two national referral teaching hospitals and one psychiatric hospital for care of Mutuelle members who are referred by district hospitals. At the district level, a district Mutuelle acts as a risk-pooling mechanism for all Mutuelles in the district and acts to reimburse the costs of district hospital care for the Mutuelle members referred by local health centers. Several sources contribute to the district Mutuelle funds: the National Guarantee Fund of Mutuelles, the sector level Mutuelle organizations, the district, and external partners. At the sector level, the Mutuelles perform a risk-pooling function for high-risk events at the sector level. Sector level Mutuelles are financed primarily by user fees, while the rest of the fees are from NGOs and development partners, interest generated from their bank accounts, and the Government of Rwanda to co-finance and subsidize membership fees. The government sponsored program Rwanda Health Insurance Scheme (La Rwandaise d’Assurance Maladie or RAMA) is financed by monthly contributions of 15% of the member’s base salary with the employer paying 7.5% and the employee paying the difference. Members of the government sponsored Military Medical Insurance (MMI) contribute 5% of their base salary and the government adds 17.5% of the members’ base salary. Beneficiaries also contribute a 15% direct co-payment for services and pharmacies. The table below summarizes the recipients of donor aid for health in Rwanda:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kenya: National Hospital Insurance Fund |
|
|
|
|
The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. Read full sectionThe National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. A new proposed measure has been gazetted in June 2010 that will see the first increase in premiums to the NHIF in almost two decades. This to between KES 150 to KES 2,000 per month, depending on income, with approximately 46,000 of the highest paid formal sector employees paying the maximum amount. Under this proposed change, premium payments for those in the informal sector would rise from KES 160 to KES 500 per month. Finally, under the proposed changes, other sectors of the government, development agencies, philanthropic organizations and other well-wishers would be able to purchase NHIF cover for indigent populations for a rate of KES 300 per person per month. Proposed changes are currently under judicial review and have not yet been implemented. NHIF funding and payments to providers exist alongside supply-side payments from the government directly to public sector providers. In essence, the salaries of most physicians and other health workers are still paid via supply-side payments, with NHIF payments typically going toward facility charges, drugs, supplies and consumables, and other types of overhead. Total health expenditure in Kenya, 2000 and 2006
Source: Kenya Ministry of Health, 2009 Overall, Kenya spends approximately 5% of its GDP on health. There are 3 major sources of financing for the health care system: the government (both central and local); private contributions; and donors. Donor contributions to the health sector have been steadily increasing from 8% of the health budget in 2000 to 36% in 2008. Traditionally, donor funding has been allocated directly to specific programs, limiting the flexibility of the MOH to reallocate donor assistance to fit government priorities. Public funding comes primarily from taxation, and allocations from the Ministry of Health (MOH), local governments, and parastatal organizations. Funding flows from the Ministry of Health (MOH) to the district level District Health Management Boards (DHMBs) and District Health Management Teams (DHMTs) and supplemented by local government, revolving funds, and user fees. Since the 1970s, the real financing allocations to the public sector have declined, and in 2008 the MOH only spent approximately USD $11.80 per capita, well below the WHO recommended spending level of USD $34 per capita. This lack of funding is largely because tax revenues have proven to be an unreliable source of health finance. To fill the funding gap, MOH has pursued a policy of cost sharing, which places a higher burden for financing on out-of-pocket expenditures in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the health budget. This poses a serious financing issue for the 56% of the population who are considered poor. In 2004, the government attempted to minimize cost sharing through the institution of a “10/20” policy, in which local health facilities only charge 10 or 20 KES for curative care; this has decreased out-of-pocket expenditures from 54% of THE in 2000 to about 36% in 2009. National Hospital Insurance FundFunding Primary Source of Funding: Payroll Tax
Secondary Source of Funding: Member contributions, Employer contributions
Contributing Populations: Formal Sector, Government Employees, Informal Sector
Types of Contributions: Premiums, Co-payments The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) requires compulsory membership for all salaried employees with premium contributions automatically deducted through payroll. Contributions are calculated on a graduated scale based on income, with a majority contributing between KES 30 to KES 320 per month. For the self-employed and others in the informal sector, membership is contributory and is available for a fixed premium of 160 KES per month. A new proposed measure has been gazetted in June 2010 that will see the first increase in premiums to the NHIF in almost two decades. This to between KES 150 to KES 2,000 per month, depending on income, with approximately 46,000 of the highest paid formal sector employees paying the maximum amount. Under this proposed change, premium payments for those in the informal sector would rise from KES 160 to KES 500 per month. Finally, under the proposed changes, other sectors of the government, development agencies, philanthropic organizations and other well-wishers would be able to purchase NHIF cover for indigent populations for a rate of KES 300 per person per month. Proposed changes are currently under judicial review and have not yet been implemented. NHIF funding and payments to providers exist alongside supply-side payments from the government directly to public sector providers. In essence, the salaries of most physicians and other health workers are still paid via supply-side payments, with NHIF payments typically going toward facility charges, drugs, supplies and consumables, and other types of overhead. Total health expenditure in Kenya, 2000 and 2006
Source: Kenya Ministry of Health, 2009 Overall, Kenya spends approximately 5% of its GDP on health. There are 3 major sources of financing for the health care system: the government (both central and local); private contributions; and donors. Donor contributions to the health sector have been steadily increasing from 8% of the health budget in 2000 to 36% in 2008. Traditionally, donor funding has been allocated directly to specific programs, limiting the flexibility of the MOH to reallocate donor assistance to fit government priorities. Public funding comes primarily from taxation, and allocations from the Ministry of Health (MOH), local governments, and parastatal organizations. Funding flows from the Ministry of Health (MOH) to the district level District Health Management Boards (DHMBs) and District Health Management Teams (DHMTs) and supplemented by local government, revolving funds, and user fees. Since the 1970s, the real financing allocations to the public sector have declined, and in 2008 the MOH only spent approximately USD $11.80 per capita, well below the WHO recommended spending level of USD $34 per capita. This lack of funding is largely because tax revenues have proven to be an unreliable source of health finance. To fill the funding gap, MOH has pursued a policy of cost sharing, which places a higher burden for financing on out-of-pocket expenditures in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the health budget. This poses a serious financing issue for the 56% of the population who are considered poor. In 2004, the government attempted to minimize cost sharing through the institution of a “10/20” policy, in which local health facilities only charge 10 or 20 KES for curative care; this has decreased out-of-pocket expenditures from 54% of THE in 2000 to about 36% in 2009. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
