Performance of Thailand's universal health coverage scheme: Evaluating the effectiveness of annual public hearings.

BACKGROUND: Legislative provisions in Thailand's National Health Security Act 2002 mandate annual public hearings for providers, beneficiaries and other stakeholders in order to improve the performance of the Universal Health Coverage Scheme (UCS). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the annual public hearing process, evaluate its effectiveness and propose recommendations for improvement. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with 29 key informants from various stakeholder groups involved in annual public hearings. RESULTS: The evaluation showed that the public hearings fully met the criteria of influence over policy decision and partially met the criteria of appropriate participation approach and social learning. However, there are rooms for improvement on public hearing's inclusiveness and representativeness of participants, adequacy of information and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Three recommendations were proposed a) informing stakeholders in advance of the agenda and hearing process to enable their active participation; b) identifying experienced facilitators to navigate the discussions across stakeholders with different or conflicting interests, in order to reach consensus and prioritize recommendations; and c) communicating policy and management responses as a result of public hearings to all stakeholders in a timely manner.

Prioritizing critical-care resources in response to COVID-19: lessons from the development of Thailand's Triage protocol.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician-patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.