RESUMEN
Inequality in health between rich and poor in Thailand was well documented; millions of informal workers and their families lacked health insurance; and the poor paid more proportionately in income for health care. The universal coverage is conceived as one of the means to redress the situation. But the term 'universal coverage' may mean differently among different groups of stakeholders. This paper, based on empirical research of health policy reform, collected perceptions and ideas from stakeholders and discusses the ways and strategies that universal coverage might take shape in Thailand. Two sources of information were taken: one from the questionnaire survey (according to the Delphi technique, two rounds of survey were taken), another an in-depth interview. Obtained information for policy formulation included how best, as conceived by stakeholders, to implement the universal coverage, sources of finance, fiscal implication for Thai government, ways to prevent higher demand for unnecessary services, and involvement of local government. Recent policy move in Thailand (the so-called 30 baht for all diseases) emerged in 2001 generated hot debate nationwide. The programme is currently in its early phase and is likely to evolve overtime--i.e. whether or not this programme will be financed by certain types of taxes or from annual government expense still unclear; and budget allocation among different health providers still unsettled. Anyhow this programme may be interpreted as a policy shift away from the pro-market based toward a government-supported egalitarianism.