Lessons learned for reducing out of pocket health payment in Afghanistan: a comparative case study of three Asian countries

F. Akbari, M. Machida, Hiroyuki Nakamura, Keisuke Nagase, A. Goto, Akinori Hara
{"title":"Lessons learned for reducing out of pocket health payment in Afghanistan: a comparative case study of three Asian countries","authors":"F. Akbari, M. Machida, Hiroyuki Nakamura, Keisuke Nagase, A. Goto, Akinori Hara","doi":"10.35500/jghs.2019.1.e46","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In Afghanistan, out-of-pocket (OOP) health costs provoke inequities of access and have pushed 2.55% of the population below the poverty line. Methods: This multiple case study consists of 3 countries' experience in OOP reduction (Afghanistan, Korea, and Thailand). Our analysis is based on “The Five Control Knobs” first proposed in 1997. Results: In the financing knob, government domestic revenue is the most important contributor to health financing in Korea and in Thailand, where OOP has been replaced. While relying on foreign donations for OOP reduction, household OOP remains the most important source of healthcare revenue in Afghanistan. As for the payment knob, OOP reduction is assisted by the following reforms in the 3 countries: 1) abolition of user fees in Afghanistan, 2) unification of health insurance agencies in Korea, and 3) introduction of a Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand. In regard to the organization knob, increasing the number of health care facilities and expanding available health services have significantly contributed to reducing OOP in all cases. In relation to the regulation knob, the following reforms have reduced OOP burdens: regulation of the private health sector in Afghanistan, separation of drug dispensing from prescribing in Korea, and introduction of the UCS in Thailand. As for the behavior knob, further improvements require patients to behave differently, as encouraged by social marketing, access to reliable health information, and effective complaint management. Conclusion: Reduction of OOP in Afghanistan could result from coordination among several reforms in the control knobs. Increasing government participation and earmarking surplus taxes for health, replacing passive provider payment methods to active ones, and including needed health services in the public standardized health packages, are actions that Afghanistan could adopt, and adapt, from the experience of Korea and Thailand for further success.","PeriodicalId":93578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health science","volume":"06 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35500/jghs.2019.1.e46","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: In Afghanistan, out-of-pocket (OOP) health costs provoke inequities of access and have pushed 2.55% of the population below the poverty line. Methods: This multiple case study consists of 3 countries' experience in OOP reduction (Afghanistan, Korea, and Thailand). Our analysis is based on “The Five Control Knobs” first proposed in 1997. Results: In the financing knob, government domestic revenue is the most important contributor to health financing in Korea and in Thailand, where OOP has been replaced. While relying on foreign donations for OOP reduction, household OOP remains the most important source of healthcare revenue in Afghanistan. As for the payment knob, OOP reduction is assisted by the following reforms in the 3 countries: 1) abolition of user fees in Afghanistan, 2) unification of health insurance agencies in Korea, and 3) introduction of a Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand. In regard to the organization knob, increasing the number of health care facilities and expanding available health services have significantly contributed to reducing OOP in all cases. In relation to the regulation knob, the following reforms have reduced OOP burdens: regulation of the private health sector in Afghanistan, separation of drug dispensing from prescribing in Korea, and introduction of the UCS in Thailand. As for the behavior knob, further improvements require patients to behave differently, as encouraged by social marketing, access to reliable health information, and effective complaint management. Conclusion: Reduction of OOP in Afghanistan could result from coordination among several reforms in the control knobs. Increasing government participation and earmarking surplus taxes for health, replacing passive provider payment methods to active ones, and including needed health services in the public standardized health packages, are actions that Afghanistan could adopt, and adapt, from the experience of Korea and Thailand for further success.
减少阿富汗自付医疗费的经验教训:对三个亚洲国家的比较案例研究
背景:在阿富汗,自付医疗费用引发了获得医疗服务的不公平现象,并将2.55%的人口推至贫困线以下。方法:本多案例研究包括3个国家(阿富汗、韩国和泰国)在减少OOP方面的经验。我们的分析是基于1997年首次提出的“五个控制旋钮”。结果:在融资环节中,政府国内收入是韩国、泰国卫生融资的主要来源,两国已取代OOP。虽然依靠外国捐款减少OOP,但家庭OOP仍然是阿富汗医疗保健收入的最重要来源。至于支付旋旋式,三个国家的以下改革有助于减少OOP: 1)阿富汗取消用户费用,2)韩国统一医疗保险机构,3)泰国引入全民覆盖计划(UCS)。在组织方面,增加保健设施的数量和扩大现有的保健服务大大有助于减少所有情况下的OOP。在管制方面,以下改革减轻了OOP的负担:阿富汗对私营保健部门的管制,韩国将药品配药与处方分离,泰国引入UCS。至于行为方面的问题,进一步的改善需要患者的行为有所不同,这是社会营销、获得可靠的健康信息和有效的投诉管理所鼓励的。结论:阿富汗OOP的减少可以通过控制旋钮的几项改革的协调来实现。阿富汗可以根据韩国和泰国的经验采取和调整这些行动,以进一步取得成功,增加政府参与并将剩余税收指定用于保健,以主动方式取代被动的提供者支付方式,并将所需的保健服务纳入公共标准化保健一揽子计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信