Promoting universal financial protection: how the Thai universal coverage scheme was designed to ensure equity.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence demonstrates that the Thai Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) has improved equity of health financing and provided a relatively high level of financial risk protection. Several UCS design features contribute to these outcomes: a tax-financed scheme, a comprehensive benefit package and gradual extension of coverage to illnesses that can lead to catastrophic household costs, and capacity of the National Health Security Office (NHSO) to mobilise adequate resources. This study assesses the policy processes related to making decisions on these features. METHODS: The study employs qualitative methods including reviews of relevant documents, in-depth interviews of 25 key informants, and triangulation amongst information sources. RESULTS: Continued political and financial commitments to the UCS, despite political rivalry, played a key role. The Thai Rak Thai (TRT)-led coalition government introduced UCS; staying in power 8 of the 11 years between 2001 and 2011 was long enough to nurture and strengthen the UCS and overcome resistance from various opponents. Prime Minister Surayud's government, replacing the ousted TRT government, introduced universal renal replacement therapy, which deepened financial risk protection.Commitment to their manifesto and fiscal capacity pushed the TRT to adopt a general tax-financed universal scheme; collecting premiums from people engaged in the informal sector was neither politically palatable nor technically feasible. The relatively stable tenure of NHSO Secretary Generals and the chairs of the Financing and the Benefit Package subcommittees provided a platform for continued deepening of financial risk protection. NHSO exerted monopsonistic purchasing power to control prices, resulting in greater patient access and better systems efficiency than might have been the case with a different design.The approach of proposing an annual per capita budget changed the conventional line-item programme budgeting system by basing negotiations between the Bureau of Budget, the NHSO and other stakeholders on evidence of service utilization and unit costs. CONCLUSIONS: Future success of Thai UCS requires coverage of effective interventions that address primary and secondary prevention of non-communicable diseases and long-term care policies in view of epidemiologic and demographic transitions. Lessons for other countries include the importance of continued political support, evidence informed decisions, and a capable purchaser organization.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical smoking cessation interventions in Thailand.

AIMS: Clinical smoking cessation interventions have been found typically to be highly cost-effective in many high-income countries. There is a need to extend this to low- and middle-income countries and undertake comparative analyses. This study aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a range of clinical smoking cessation interventions available in Thailand. METHODS: Using a Markov model, cost-effectiveness, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, from a range of interventions was estimated from a societal perspective for males and females aged 40 years who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day. Interventions considered were: counselling in hospital, phone counselling (Quitline) and counselling plus nicotine gum, nicotine patch, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline. An annual discounting rate of 3% was used. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) plotted. Comparisons between interventions were conducted involving application of a 'decision rule' process. RESULTS: Counselling with varenicline and counselling with nortriptyline were found to be cost-effective. Hospital counselling only, nicotine patch and bupropion were dominated by Quitline, nortriptyline and varenicline, respectively, according to the decision rule. When compared with unassisted cessation, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that all interventions have very high probabilities (95%) of being cost-saving except for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patch (74%). CONCLUSION: In middle-income countries such as Thailand, nortriptyline and varenicline appear to provide cost-effective clinical options for supporting smokers to quit.