Annual prevalence of unmet healthcare need in Thailand: evidence from national household surveys between 2011 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Extending Universal Health Coverage (UHC) requires identifying and addressing unmet healthcare need and its causes to improve access to essential health services. Unmet need is a useful monitoring indicator to verify if low incidence of catastrophic health spending is not a result of foregone services due to unmet needs. This study assesses the trend, between 2011 and 2019, of prevalence and reasons of unmet healthcare need and identifies population groups who had unmet needs. METHOD: The unmet healthcare need module in the Health and Welfare Survey (HWS) 2011-2019 was used for analysis. HWS is a nationally representative household survey conducted by the National Statistical Office biennially. There are more than 60,000 respondents in each round of survey. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standard questions on unmet need and reasons behind were applied for outpatient (OP), inpatient (IP) and dental services in the past 12 months. Data from samples were weighted to represent the Thai population. Univariate analysis was applied to assess unmet need across socioeconomic profiles. RESULTS: The annual prevalence of unmet need between 2011 and 2019 was lower than 3%. The prevalence was 1.3-1.6% for outpatient services, 0.9% - 1.1% for dental services, and lower than 0.2% for inpatient care. A small increasing trend was observed on dental service unmet need, from 0.9% in 2011 to 1.1% in 2019. The poor, the elderly and people living in urban areas had higher unmet needs than their counterparts. Long waiting times was the main reason for unmet need, while cost of treatment was not an issue. CONCLUSION: The low level of unmet need at less than 3% was lower than OECD average (28%), and was the result of UHC since 2002. Regular monitoring using the national representative household survey to estimate annual prevalence and reasons for unmet need can guide policy to sustain and improve access by certain population groups.

Contracting the private health sector in Thailand's Universal Health Coverage.

Private sector plays an import role in health service provision, therefore the engagement of private health facilities is important for ensuring access to health services. In Thailand, two of the three public health insurance schemes, Universal Coverage Scheme and Social Health Insurance, contract with private health facilities to fill gaps of public providers for the provision of health services under Universal Health Coverage. The National Health Security Office (NHSO) and Social Security Office (SSO), which manage the schemes respectively, have designed their own contractual agreements for private facilities. We aim to understand the current situation of contracting private health facilities within UHC of the two purchasing agencies. This qualitative descriptive case study was conducted through document review and in-depth interviews with key informants to understand how they contract private primary care facilities, service types, duration of contract, standard and quality requirement and renewal and termination of contracts. Private providers make a small contribution to the service provision in Thailand as a whole but they are important actors in Bangkok. The current approaches used by two purchasers are not adequate in engaging private sector to fill the gap of public provision in urban cities. One important reason is that large private hospitals do not find public contracts financially attractive. NHSO classifies contracts into 3 categories: main contracting units, primary care units, and referral units; while SSO only contracts main contracting units. Both allows subcontracting by the main contractors. Contractual agreements are effective in ensuring mandatory infrastructure and quality standards. Both purchasers have established technical capacities to enforce quality monitoring and financial compliance although there remains room for improvement especially on identifying fraud and taking legal actions. Contracting private healthcare facilities can fill the gap of public healthcare facilities, especially in urban settings. Purchasers need to balance the right level of incentives and accountability measures to ensure access to quality of care. In contracting private-for-profit providers, strong regulatory enforcement and auditing capacities are necessary. Further studies may explore various aspects contracting outcomes including access, equity, quality and efficiency impacts.

Procedural fairness in benefit package design: inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis of HIV in Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand.

Since 2002, Thailand's Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) has adopted a comprehensive benefits package with few exclusions. A positive-list approach has gradually been applied, with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV recently being included. Disagreements resulting from competing values and diverging interests necessitate an emphasis on procedural fairness when making any decisions. This qualitative study analyses agenda setting, policy formulation and early implementation of PrEP from a procedural fairness lens. Literature reviews and in-depth interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in PrEP policy processes were conducted. Civil society organizations (CSOs) and academia piloted PrEP service models and co-produced evidence on programmatic feasibility and outcomes. Through a broad stakeholder representation process, the Department of Disease Control proposed PrEP for inclusion in UCS benefits package in 2017. PrEP was shown to be cost-effective and affordable through rigorous health technology assessment, peer review, use of up-to-date evidence and safe-guards against conflicts of interest. In 2021, Thailand's National Health Security Board decided to include PrEP as a prevention and promotion package, free of charge, for the populations at risk. Favourable conditions for procedural fairness were created by Thailand's legislative provisions that enable responsive governance, notably inclusiveness, transparency, safeguarding public interest and accountable budget allocations; longstanding institutional capacity to generate local evidence; and implementation capacity for realisation of procedural fairness criteria. Multiple stakeholders including CSOs, academia and the government deliberated in the policy process through working groups and sub-committees. However, a key lesson from Thailand's deliberative process concerns a possible 'over interpretation' of conflicts of interest, intended to promote impartial decision-making, which inadvertently limited the voices of key populations represented in the decision processes. Finally, this case study underscores the value of examining the full policy cycle when assessing procedural fairness, since some stages of the process may be more amenable to certain procedural criteria than others.