Search

Introduction In 2017 the Thai Ministry of Public Health proposed a new financing mechanism to promote day surgery under the Universal Coverage Scheme - the main public insurance arrangement for Thais. The key feature of the policy is health facilities performing day surgery can claim the treatment expense based on relative weight (RW) instead of adjusted RW (adjRW). Procedures for 12 diseases (so-called "candidate procedures") are eligible for the new reimbursement. The objective of this study was to assess the current day surgery situation in Thailand and analyze potential budget impact from the new policy. Methods A quantitative cross-section design was employed. Individual inpatient records of the Universal Coverage Scheme during 2014-2016 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and simulation analyses were applied. The analyses were divided into three subtopics: 1) case volume and expense claim, 2) utilization across facilities, and 3) case mix index and budget impact. Results Overall, day surgery accounted for 4.8% of admissions with candidate procedures. Inguinal hernias, hemorrhoids, and common bile duct stones caused the largest sum of admission numbers and admission days. Currently, the annual reimbursement for candidate procedures treated as inpatient cases is around 290.8 million Baht (US$ 8.8 million), with about 12.4 million Baht (US$ 0.38 million) for day surgery cases. If all candidate procedures were performed as day surgery and diagnostic-related groups (DRG) version 6 was applied, the incremental budget would amount to 1.9 million Baht (US$ 58,903). Conclusions The new reimbursement policy will likely lead to minimal budget burden. Even in the case of maximal uptake of the policy, the needed budget would increase by just 15%. The marginal budget increment was explained by the infinitesimal RW-adjRW difference. Apart from the financial measure, other qualitative aspects of the policy, such as infrastructure and health staff readiness, should be explored.

Background Thailand, an upper-middle income country, has demonstrated exemplary outcomes of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). The country achieved full population coverage and a high level of financial risk protection since 2002, through implementing three public health insurance schemes. UHC has two explicit goals of improved access to health services and financial protection where use of these services does not create financial hardship. Prior studies in Thailand do not provide evidence of long-term UHC financial risk protection. This study assessed financial risk protection as measured by the incidence of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment in Thai households prior to and after UHC in 2002. Methods We used data from a 15-year series of annual national household socioeconomic surveys (SES) between 1996 and 2015, which were conducted by the National Statistic Office (NSO). The survey covered about 52,000 nationally representative households in each round. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the incidence of catastrophic payment as measured by the share of out-of-pocket payment (OOP) for health by households exceeding 10 and 25% of household total consumption expenditure, and the incidence of impoverishment as determined by the additional number of non-poor households falling below the national and international poverty lines after making health payments. Results Using the 10% threshold, the incidence of catastrophic spending dropped from 6.0% in 1996 to 2% in 2015. This incidence reduced more significantly when the 25% threshold was applied from 1.8 to 0.4% during the same period. The incidence of impoverishment against the national poverty line reduced considerably from 2.2% in 1996 to approximately 0.3% in 2015. When the international poverty line of US$ 3.1 per capita per day was applied, the incidence of impoverishment was 1.4 and 0.4% in 1996 and 2015 respectively; and when US$ 1.9 per day was applied, the incidence was negligibly low. Conclusion The significant decline in the incidence of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment was attributed to the deliberate design of Thailand’s UHC, which provides a comprehensive benefits package and zero co-payment at point of services. The well-founded healthcare delivery system and favourable benefits package concertedly support the achievement of UHC goals of access and financial risk protection.

Melioidosis is among the most common causes of septicemia in Thailand, but data on economic burden are limited. We describe the economic impact of bacteremic melioidosis hospitalizations in two Thailand provinces during 2006-2008. Costs are presented in US dollars ($1 = 30.49 Thai Baht). The average annual incidence of bacteremic melioidosis cases per 100,000 persons in Sa Kaeo and Nakhon Phanom was 4.6 and 14.4, respectively. The annual cost of bacteremic melioidosis hospitalizations from the societal perspective, including direct and indirect costs, was $152,159 in Sa Kaeo and $465,303 in Nakhon Phanom. The average cost per fatal case was $14,182 and $14,858 in Sa Kaeo and Nakhon Phanom, respectively. In addition to the high morbidity and mortality, the substantial economic burden of melioidosis further supports the need for investments to identify improved prevention and control strategies for melioidosis.

Background In the light of the universal healthcare coverage that was achieved in Thailand in 2002, policy makers have raised concerns about whether there is still unmet need within the population. Our objectives were to assess the annual prevalence, characteristics and reasons for unmet healthcare need in the Thai population in 2010 and to compare our findings with relevant international literature. Methods A standard set of OECD unmet need questionnaires was used in a nationally-representative household survey conducted in 2010 by the National Statistical Office. The prevalence of unmet need among respondents with various socio-economic characteristics was estimated to determine an inequity in the unmet need and the reasons behind it. Results The annual prevalence of unmet need for outpatient and inpatient services in 2010 was 1.4% and 0.4%, respectively. Despite this low prevalence, there are inequities with relatively higher proportion of the unmet need among Universal Coverage Scheme members, and the poor and rural populations. There was less unmet need due to cost than there was due to geographical barriers. The prevalence of unmet need due to cost and geographical barriers among the richest and poorest quintiles were comparable to those of selected OECD countries. The geographical extension of healthcare infrastructure and of the distribution of health workers is a major contributing factor to the low prevalence of unmet need. Conclusions The low prevalence of unmet need for both outpatient and inpatient services is a result of the availability of well-functioning health services at the most peripheral level, and of the comprehensive benefit package offered free of charge by all health insurance schemes. This assessment prompts a need for regular monitoring of unmet need in nationally-representative household surveys.

Background Thailand has achieved universal health coverage since 2002 through the implementation of the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) for 47 million of the population who were neither private sector employees nor government employees. A well performing UCS should achieve health equity goals in terms of health service use and distribution of government subsidy on health. With these goals in mind, this paper assesses the magnitude and trend of government health budget benefiting the poor as compared to the rich UCS members. Method Benefit incidence analysis was conducted using the nationally representative household surveys, Health and Welfare Surveys, between 2003 and 2009. UCS members are grouped into five different socio-economic status using asset indexes and wealth quintiles. Findings The total government subsidy, net of direct household payment, for combined outpatient (OP) and inpatient (IP) services to public hospitals and health facilities provided to UCS members, had increased from 30 billion Baht (US$ 1 billion) in 2003 to 40-46 billion Baht in 2004-2009. In 2003 for 23% and 12% of the UCS members who belonged to the poorest and richest quintiles of the whole-country populations respectively, the share of public subsidies for OP service was 28% and 7% for the poorest and the richest quintiles, whereby for IP services the share was 27% and 6% for the poorest and richest quintiles respectively. This reflects a pro-poor outcome of public subsidies to healthcare. The OP and IP public subsidies remained consistently pro-poor in subsequent years. The pro-poor benefit incidence is determined by higher utilization by the poorest than the richest quintiles, especially at health centres and district hospitals. Thus the probability and the amount of household direct health payment for public facilities by the poorest UCS members were less than their richest counterparts. Conclusions Higher utilization and better financial risk protection benefiting the poor UCS members are the results of extensive geographical coverage of health service infrastructure especially at district level, adequate finance and functioning primary healthcare, comprehensive benefit package and zero copayment at points of services.