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 | Key Actors in Insurance Administration | Organizational Structure | Collections Responsibility | Operations Responsibility | Oversight Responsibility | Institutional structures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estonia: Estonian Health Insurance Fund |
|
|
|
|
The Estonian Health System is centralized at the national level. Funds collection is managed by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF). The EHIF is also responsible for the operations of the financing system, as it is the only purchaser for health care services within the country. Health system oversight is carried out by both the EHIF supervisory board as well as the health division of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Read full sectionThe Estonian Health System is centralized at the national level. Funds collection is managed by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF). The EHIF is also responsible for the operations of the financing system, as it is the only purchaser for health care services within the country. Health system oversight is carried out by both the EHIF supervisory board as well as the health division of the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF) is responsible for the financing of the health system. Its responsibilities include:
A 15 member supervisory board is responsible for EHIF results. This board is composed of representatives from employer organizations, insured individuals’ organizations, and the state. This board approves the four year development plan and the annual budget. The supervisory board also composes necessary reports and selects providers for contracting. It also has the authority to examine and audit all documents. The management board is responsible for daily EHIF operations. Under the management board, the central and four regional departments conduct needs assessments, contract with providers, and process claims. The government plays a role in planning and regulating the health system by:
The health division of the Ministry of Social Affairs is responsible for:
Table 2: Influence on decisions made by the EHIF
(++ Strong Influence; + Moderate Influence; -- No Influence) County governments are responsible for:
All health care providers within Estonia function as private parties operating under the purview of private law. Family practices are organized as private businesses or joint-stock companies, while hospitals are organized as for-profit joint stock companies or non-profit foundations. Estonian Health Insurance FundInstitutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration:
Organization: Centralized
Collections Responsibility: Central Government
Operations Responsibility: Central Government
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government The Estonian Health System is centralized at the national level. Funds collection is managed by the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. The tax board then transfers the health contribution to the Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF). The EHIF is also responsible for the operations of the financing system, as it is the only purchaser for health care services within the country. Health system oversight is carried out by both the EHIF supervisory board as well as the health division of the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF) is responsible for the financing of the health system. Its responsibilities include:
A 15 member supervisory board is responsible for EHIF results. This board is composed of representatives from employer organizations, insured individuals’ organizations, and the state. This board approves the four year development plan and the annual budget. The supervisory board also composes necessary reports and selects providers for contracting. It also has the authority to examine and audit all documents. The management board is responsible for daily EHIF operations. Under the management board, the central and four regional departments conduct needs assessments, contract with providers, and process claims. The government plays a role in planning and regulating the health system by:
The health division of the Ministry of Social Affairs is responsible for:
Table 2: Influence on decisions made by the EHIF
(++ Strong Influence; + Moderate Influence; -- No Influence) County governments are responsible for:
All health care providers within Estonia function as private parties operating under the purview of private law. Family practices are organized as private businesses or joint-stock companies, while hospitals are organized as for-profit joint stock companies or non-profit foundations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mali: Mutuelles |
|
|
|
|
|
Although the Social Protection Ministry is the sole entity in charge of the three medical coverage systems, the institutional framework is different for each one. For the Mutuelles, the National Strategy identifies a new organizational chart, illustrated below. This scheme seeks to create Mutuelles at the community or commune level, networked at the higher levels by the district Mutuelle unions, the regional federations of Mutuelles, and a national federation of Mutuelles. Read full sectionAlthough the Social Protection Ministry is the sole entity in charge of the three medical coverage systems, the institutional framework is different for each one. For the Mutuelles, the National Strategy identifies a new organizational chart, illustrated below. This scheme seeks to create Mutuelles at the community or commune level, networked at the higher levels by the district Mutuelle unions, the regional federations of Mutuelles, and a national federation of Mutuelles.
Table 4 illustrates the institutional framework planned for the Mutuelle system. Table 4: Institutional system for the Mutuelle system
Source: Ministry of Social Protection For the AMO, a National Health Insurance Fund (CANAM) was set up as a management agency, with two delegated management entities: the Malian Health Insurance Fund (CMSS) and the National Social Welfare Institute (INPS) for collecting dues and paying for health care services. The National Medical Assistance Agency (ANAM) was set up for RAMED. The management bodies and their respective roles are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Organization and operating procedures– AMO and RAMED
Source: Ministry of Social Protection MutuellesInstitutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration: Central Government, District/Local Government, Mutuelles
Organization: Decentralized to district/local level
Collections Responsibility: Mutuelles
Operations Responsibility: Mutuelles
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government, District/Local Government Although the Social Protection Ministry is the sole entity in charge of the three medical coverage systems, the institutional framework is different for each one. For the Mutuelles, the National Strategy identifies a new organizational chart, illustrated below. This scheme seeks to create Mutuelles at the community or commune level, networked at the higher levels by the district Mutuelle unions, the regional federations of Mutuelles, and a national federation of Mutuelles.
Table 4 illustrates the institutional framework planned for the Mutuelle system. Table 4: Institutional system for the Mutuelle system
Source: Ministry of Social Protection For the AMO, a National Health Insurance Fund (CANAM) was set up as a management agency, with two delegated management entities: the Malian Health Insurance Fund (CMSS) and the National Social Welfare Institute (INPS) for collecting dues and paying for health care services. The National Medical Assistance Agency (ANAM) was set up for RAMED. The management bodies and their respective roles are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Organization and operating procedures– AMO and RAMED
Source: Ministry of Social Protection |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nigeria: National Health Insurance System |
|
|
|
|
|
The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) is the body responsible for regulation of the system and the different health insurance schemes. The Governing Board of the National Health Insurance Scheme is the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC). NHIC works to regulate the scheme (including setting standards, determining contribution rates, providing technical support, etc), license HMOs and providers, train health care providers, and manage the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). Read full sectionThe National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) is the body responsible for regulation of the system and the different health insurance schemes. The Governing Board of the National Health Insurance Scheme is the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC). NHIC works to regulate the scheme (including setting standards, determining contribution rates, providing technical support, etc), license HMOs and providers, train health care providers, and manage the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). HMOS are licensed by the NHIS to facilitate the provision of healthcare benefits to contributors under the Formal Sector Social health Insurance Program; to interface between eligible contributors, including voluntary contributors and the healthcare providers, ensure member registration, public education about the schemes, collect premiums from members and employers, contract with providers, process claims, and pay claims directly to providers.
The informal sector scheme under the NHIS is managed by a Board of Trustees composed of the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and four others. A clerk is appointed to carry out clerical and accounting duties. The Board of Trustees has executive power and is responsible for collecting contributions from participants, paying providers for services rendered, and operating a bank account with an NHIS accredited Bank. The Nigerian system is organized as a federation and divided into three tiers: federal, state, and local. The federal government sets overall policy direction and standards, implements national immunization programs, and oversees federally funded tertiary health facilities. The states undertake policy making and regulation as well as financial responsibility for the personnel, operating costs, and capital investment of the tertiary, secondary, and primary care facilities. The 774 local government associations (LGAs) are responsible for primary health care delivery, under the guidance and supervision of federal and state departments of primary health care. LGAs tend to exert the least influence in this system, and frequently suffer from insufficient funding. National Health Insurance SystemInstitutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration: Central Government, Other
Organization: Centralized
Collections Responsibility: Other
Operations Responsibility: Central Government, Other
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) is the body responsible for regulation of the system and the different health insurance schemes. The Governing Board of the National Health Insurance Scheme is the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC). NHIC works to regulate the scheme (including setting standards, determining contribution rates, providing technical support, etc), license HMOs and providers, train health care providers, and manage the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). HMOS are licensed by the NHIS to facilitate the provision of healthcare benefits to contributors under the Formal Sector Social health Insurance Program; to interface between eligible contributors, including voluntary contributors and the healthcare providers, ensure member registration, public education about the schemes, collect premiums from members and employers, contract with providers, process claims, and pay claims directly to providers.
The informal sector scheme under the NHIS is managed by a Board of Trustees composed of the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and four others. A clerk is appointed to carry out clerical and accounting duties. The Board of Trustees has executive power and is responsible for collecting contributions from participants, paying providers for services rendered, and operating a bank account with an NHIS accredited Bank. The Nigerian system is organized as a federation and divided into three tiers: federal, state, and local. The federal government sets overall policy direction and standards, implements national immunization programs, and oversees federally funded tertiary health facilities. The states undertake policy making and regulation as well as financial responsibility for the personnel, operating costs, and capital investment of the tertiary, secondary, and primary care facilities. The 774 local government associations (LGAs) are responsible for primary health care delivery, under the guidance and supervision of federal and state departments of primary health care. LGAs tend to exert the least influence in this system, and frequently suffer from insufficient funding. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| India: RSBY |
|
|
|
|
|
Several stakeholders are involved in the oversight and execution of RSBY at both the national and state levels. A key actor in the administration of the scheme is the insurer. The insurer must cover the benefit package designed by the central MoLE through a cashless facility. Additionally, it acts as an intermediary between RSBY and local organizations in order to provide grassroots outreach and assist members in utilizing the services after enrollment. Read full sectionSeveral stakeholders are involved in the oversight and execution of RSBY at both the national and state levels. A key actor in the administration of the scheme is the insurer. The insurer must cover the benefit package designed by the central MoLE through a cashless facility. Additionally, it acts as an intermediary between RSBY and local organizations in order to provide grassroots outreach and assist members in utilizing the services after enrollment. Once a state has agreed to implement RSBY, a nodal department is selected by the State. The nodal department designate sets up a nodal agency which is responsible for implementing RSBY. The nodal agency seeks bids from registered public or private insurance companies. The financial bid is essentially an annual premium per enrolled household. Technically qualified insurer(s) with the lowest bid is/are selected as the state’s RSBY insurer. A state can seek bids from multiple insurers for various districts. Selected insurers are compensated on the basis of the number of SmartCards issued (i.e. households covered). Each contract is specified on the basis of an individual district in a state, with the insurer agreeing to set up an office in each district where it operates. While more than one insurer can operate in a particular state, only one insurer can operate in a single district at any given point in time. The use of a cashless facility in turn requires the use of SmartCards which must be issued to all members. This requires that a sub-contract be arranged with a qualified Third Party Administrator/SmartCard provider. The insurer must also agree to engage intermediaries with local presence (e.g., NGOs) in order to provide grassroots outreach and assist members in utilizing the services after enrollment. The insurer must also build a list of empanelled hospitals that will participate in the cashless arrangement. These hospitals must meet certain basic minimum requirements (e.g., size and registration) and must agree to set up a special RSBY desk with SmartCard and fingerprint readers and train the hospital staff. The list should include public and private hospitals. The insurer must also establish a separate Project Office for implementing the scheme and coordinating activities with the state nodal agency in the state capital. The insurer will have appropriate people in their own/TPA, state, and district offices to perform the following functions:
As of January 2010, eleven public and private insurance companies were engaged in insuring RSBY beneficiaries across 23 states. Since in the initial phases of RSBY, the focus was on stabilizing processes and operations, insurer contracts were set for one year. Now that processes and basic operations have been ironed out and stabilized, the contract period has been extended to a maximum period of three years. However, even three year contracts are subject to annual renewal based on insurer performance, with annual performance goals defined by the government at the time of initial contract signing. The table below summarizes the roles and responsibilities of all organizations involved in operationalizing RSBY at the state and national level:
RSBYInstitutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration: Central Government, State Government, Commercial insurers, NGOs
Organization: Decentralized to state level
Collections Responsibility: State Government, Commercial insurers
Operations Responsibility: Commercial insurers
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government, State Government Several stakeholders are involved in the oversight and execution of RSBY at both the national and state levels. A key actor in the administration of the scheme is the insurer. The insurer must cover the benefit package designed by the central MoLE through a cashless facility. Additionally, it acts as an intermediary between RSBY and local organizations in order to provide grassroots outreach and assist members in utilizing the services after enrollment. Once a state has agreed to implement RSBY, a nodal department is selected by the State. The nodal department designate sets up a nodal agency which is responsible for implementing RSBY. The nodal agency seeks bids from registered public or private insurance companies. The financial bid is essentially an annual premium per enrolled household. Technically qualified insurer(s) with the lowest bid is/are selected as the state’s RSBY insurer. A state can seek bids from multiple insurers for various districts. Selected insurers are compensated on the basis of the number of SmartCards issued (i.e. households covered). Each contract is specified on the basis of an individual district in a state, with the insurer agreeing to set up an office in each district where it operates. While more than one insurer can operate in a particular state, only one insurer can operate in a single district at any given point in time. The use of a cashless facility in turn requires the use of SmartCards which must be issued to all members. This requires that a sub-contract be arranged with a qualified Third Party Administrator/SmartCard provider. The insurer must also agree to engage intermediaries with local presence (e.g., NGOs) in order to provide grassroots outreach and assist members in utilizing the services after enrollment. The insurer must also build a list of empanelled hospitals that will participate in the cashless arrangement. These hospitals must meet certain basic minimum requirements (e.g., size and registration) and must agree to set up a special RSBY desk with SmartCard and fingerprint readers and train the hospital staff. The list should include public and private hospitals. The insurer must also establish a separate Project Office for implementing the scheme and coordinating activities with the state nodal agency in the state capital. The insurer will have appropriate people in their own/TPA, state, and district offices to perform the following functions:
As of January 2010, eleven public and private insurance companies were engaged in insuring RSBY beneficiaries across 23 states. Since in the initial phases of RSBY, the focus was on stabilizing processes and operations, insurer contracts were set for one year. Now that processes and basic operations have been ironed out and stabilized, the contract period has been extended to a maximum period of three years. However, even three year contracts are subject to annual renewal based on insurer performance, with annual performance goals defined by the government at the time of initial contract signing. The table below summarizes the roles and responsibilities of all organizations involved in operationalizing RSBY at the state and national level:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brazil: Unified Health System (SUS) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Brazilian health system is largely decentralized. Funds collection takes place at the federal, state, and municipal levels, with the municipal level as the final destination for resources. Operations within the Brazilian health system are managed primarily at the state and municipal levels. Finally, federal and state governments have primary responsibility for overseeing the health system, with the Ministry of Health and the state health secretariats taking lead roles. Read full sectionThe Brazilian health system is largely decentralized. Funds collection takes place at the federal, state, and municipal levels, with the municipal level as the final destination for resources. Operations within the Brazilian health system are managed primarily at the state and municipal levels. Finally, federal and state governments have primary responsibility for overseeing the health system, with the Ministry of Health and the state health secretariats taking lead roles. The Brazilian health system is divided into the Unified Health System (SUS), which encompasses the public provision of health care, and the Supplementary Health System (SHS), which encompasses the private provision of health services. Under the SUS, the federal government is responsible for developing national policies, controlling national regulation, providing technical and financial assistance to states and municipalities, and regulating public-private relations as well as private sector activity. The states are responsible for the regional network, as well as for supervising and providing technical and financial support to the municipalities. The municipalities are responsible for providing health services and health planning. At the federal level, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for the health sector. The MOH has counterparts at the state and municipal level which are organized into Secretariats. Each of the secretariats has a health fund responsible for consolidating the financial resources that come from the different sources (i.e. the municipal fund consolidates municipal, state and federal resources while the state fund consolidates state and federal resources).
Planning and allocation decisions occur every four years at National Health Conferences (NHC). The most recent one was the 13th NHC in 2007. Conferences occur in stages whereby municipal health councils meet first, followed by state councils, and finally ending with the national conference. The councils are formed by the following types of members: 50% are users of the SUS, 25% are elected representatives from the health professions, and 25% are elected representatives of managers and providers of public health services. The health councils are bodies of the executive branch which include the Ministry of Health, the State Secretary of Health, and the Municipal Secretary of Health. As of 2006, Brazil had 4,390 municipal health councils with at least 100,000 members in total. Most of these municipal councils were formed in 1991. The National Health Council has 48 members and holds monthly plenary meetings, organizes commissions and work groups, and has an executive secretary. In preparation for each conference, each council produces a priority-setting health policy report concerning a core subject that is predetermined by the NHC. Municipal reports are sent to the state committee and the state reports are sent to the national committee. During the last five days of the last NHC, ten discussion groups debated and voted for the health legislation proposed by the state jurisdictions. Those that received at least 70% of the vote and were approved by 6 out of the 10 discussion groups became policy. Proposals that received between 30% and 69% of the vote could become policy if during a final voting round they received 50% plus one vote. Unified Health System (SUS)Institutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration: Central Government, State Government, District/Local Government
Organization: Decentralized to district/local level
Collections Responsibility: Central Government, State Government, District/Local Government
Operations Responsibility: State Government, District/Local Government
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government, State Government The Brazilian health system is largely decentralized. Funds collection takes place at the federal, state, and municipal levels, with the municipal level as the final destination for resources. Operations within the Brazilian health system are managed primarily at the state and municipal levels. Finally, federal and state governments have primary responsibility for overseeing the health system, with the Ministry of Health and the state health secretariats taking lead roles. The Brazilian health system is divided into the Unified Health System (SUS), which encompasses the public provision of health care, and the Supplementary Health System (SHS), which encompasses the private provision of health services. Under the SUS, the federal government is responsible for developing national policies, controlling national regulation, providing technical and financial assistance to states and municipalities, and regulating public-private relations as well as private sector activity. The states are responsible for the regional network, as well as for supervising and providing technical and financial support to the municipalities. The municipalities are responsible for providing health services and health planning. At the federal level, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for the health sector. The MOH has counterparts at the state and municipal level which are organized into Secretariats. Each of the secretariats has a health fund responsible for consolidating the financial resources that come from the different sources (i.e. the municipal fund consolidates municipal, state and federal resources while the state fund consolidates state and federal resources).
Planning and allocation decisions occur every four years at National Health Conferences (NHC). The most recent one was the 13th NHC in 2007. Conferences occur in stages whereby municipal health councils meet first, followed by state councils, and finally ending with the national conference. The councils are formed by the following types of members: 50% are users of the SUS, 25% are elected representatives from the health professions, and 25% are elected representatives of managers and providers of public health services. The health councils are bodies of the executive branch which include the Ministry of Health, the State Secretary of Health, and the Municipal Secretary of Health. As of 2006, Brazil had 4,390 municipal health councils with at least 100,000 members in total. Most of these municipal councils were formed in 1991. The National Health Council has 48 members and holds monthly plenary meetings, organizes commissions and work groups, and has an executive secretary. In preparation for each conference, each council produces a priority-setting health policy report concerning a core subject that is predetermined by the NHC. Municipal reports are sent to the state committee and the state reports are sent to the national committee. During the last five days of the last NHC, ten discussion groups debated and voted for the health legislation proposed by the state jurisdictions. Those that received at least 70% of the vote and were approved by 6 out of the 10 discussion groups became policy. Proposals that received between 30% and 69% of the vote could become policy if during a final voting round they received 50% plus one vote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thailand: Universal Coverage Scheme |
|
|
|
|
|
UCS is managed and overseen by the National Health Security Office (NHSO), an autonomous agency that was established by the National Health Security Act of 2002. The scheme also has a National Health Security Board within the NHSO, chaired by the Minister of Public Health. Copayments, benefits package, standards guidelines, quality standards, contract processes, and payment mechanisms are all decided by Board. Read full sectionUCS is managed and overseen by the National Health Security Office (NHSO), an autonomous agency that was established by the National Health Security Act of 2002. The scheme also has a National Health Security Board within the NHSO, chaired by the Minister of Public Health. Copayments, benefits package, standards guidelines, quality standards, contract processes, and payment mechanisms are all decided by Board. Furthermore, the NHSO has regional and provincial branch offices to handle beneficiary questions and requests. Governance in the Thai public health insurance system is fragmented. The National Health Security Office manages and oversees the UCS, while the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labor oversee the other public insurance schemes as well as the private insurance market. The figure below presents a snapshot of the governance structure of Thai public insurance. While there are no standardized coding and reporting systems among Thai health care facilities and among insurers, the various public health insurance schemes have joined an initiative to integrate utilization databases among the schemes to develop statistical analysis of utilization activity, planning and monitoring processes. The National Health Security Board has autonomy by law to steer overall management of the scheme. Co-payments, benefits package, standard guidelines, quality standards, contract processes, and payment mechanisms are decided by Board. There is a Standard Board which is responsible to prepare quality standards and oversee beneficiary complaints and grievances. The UCS has its own IT infrastructure. While the clinical information system of the UCS is similar to other schemes, it is not identical. The UCS has also developed specific applications for health facilities to collect data for reimbursement in specific disease management programs (e.g. leukemia, diabetic mellitus, HIV/AIDS, etc.). The UCS also has dedicated customer service facilities including a dedicated call centre. Branch offices and the call centre are available to beneficiaries to answer questions and request. Complaints and grievances are reviewed at branch offices and at the central office. Finally, outstanding grievances are decided in a subcommittee of the Standard Board. The NHSO has regional branches offices and province branch offices to handle beneficiary questions and requests. Universal Coverage SchemeInstitutional structures Key Actors in Insurance Administration: Central Government
Organization: Centralized
Collections Responsibility: Central Government
Operations Responsibility: Central Government
Oversight Responsibility: Central Government UCS is managed and overseen by the National Health Security Office (NHSO), an autonomous agency that was established by the National Health Security Act of 2002. The scheme also has a National Health Security Board within the NHSO, chaired by the Minister of Public Health. Copayments, benefits package, standards guidelines, quality standards, contract processes, and payment mechanisms are all decided by Board. Furthermore, the NHSO has regional and provincial branch offices to handle beneficiary questions and requests. Governance in the Thai public health insurance system is fragmented. The National Health Security Office manages and oversees the UCS, while the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labor oversee the other public insurance schemes as well as the private insurance market. The figure below presents a snapshot of the governance structure of Thai public insurance. While there are no standardized coding and reporting systems among Thai health care facilities and among insurers, the various public health insurance schemes have joined an initiative to integrate utilization databases among the schemes to develop statistical analysis of utilization activity, planning and monitoring processes. The National Health Security Board has autonomy by law to steer overall management of the scheme. Co-payments, benefits package, standard guidelines, quality standards, contract processes, and payment mechanisms are decided by Board. There is a Standard Board which is responsible to prepare quality standards and oversee beneficiary complaints and grievances. The UCS has its own IT infrastructure. While the clinical information system of the UCS is similar to other schemes, it is not identical. The UCS has also developed specific applications for health facilities to collect data for reimbursement in specific disease management programs (e.g. leukemia, diabetic mellitus, HIV/AIDS, etc.). The UCS also has dedicated customer service facilities including a dedicated call centre. Branch offices and the call centre are available to beneficiaries to answer questions and request. Complaints and grievances are reviewed at branch offices and at the central office. Finally, outstanding grievances are decided in a subcommittee of the Standard Board. The NHSO has regional branches offices and province branch offices to handle beneficiary questions and requests. |



