Explore the vast range of titles available.

In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution defined health as a universal right and a state responsibility. Progress towards universal health coverage in Brazil has been achieved through a unified health system (Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS]), created in 1990. With successes and setbacks in the implementation of health programmes and the organisation of its health system, Brazil has achieved nearly universal access to health-care services for the population. The trajectory of the development and expansion of the SUS offers valuable lessons on how to scale universal health coverage in a highly unequal country with relatively low resources allocated to health-care services by the government compared with that in middle-income and high-income countries. Analysis of the past 30 years since the inception of the SUS shows that innovations extend beyond the development of new models of care and highlights the importance of establishing political, legal, organisational, and management-related structures, with clearly defined roles for both the federal and local governments in the governance, planning, financing, and provision of health-care services. The expansion of the SUS has allowed Brazil to rapidly address the changing health needs of the population, with dramatic upscaling of health service coverage in just three decades. However, despite its successes, analysis of future scenarios suggests the urgent need to address lingering geographical inequalities, insufficient funding, and suboptimal private sector–public sector collaboration. Fiscal policies implemented in 2016 ushered in austerity measures that, alongside the new environmental, educational, and health policies of the Brazilian government, could reverse the hard-earned achievements of the SUS and threaten its sustainability and ability to fulfil its constitutional mandate of providing health care for all.

Better integration of public health and medical services and greater focus on quality of services are needed to make further progress on health outcomes, say Beibei Yuan and colleagues

In 2013 Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country, declared that it would provide affordable health care for all its citizens within seven years. This crystallised an ambition first enshrined in law over five decades earlier, but never previously realised. This paper explores Indonesia's journey towards universal health coverage (UHC) from independence to the launch of a comprehensive health insurance scheme in January 2014. We find that Indonesia's path has been determined largely by domestic political concerns – different groups obtained access to healthcare as their socio-political importance grew. A major inflection point occurred following the Asian financial crisis of 1997. To stave off social unrest, the government provided health coverage for the poor for the first time, creating a path dependency that influenced later policy choices. The end of this programme coincided with decentralisation, leading to experimentation with several different models of health provision at the local level. When direct elections for local leaders were introduced in 2005, popular health schemes led to success at the polls. UHC became an electoral asset, moving up the political agenda. It also became contested, with national policy-makers appropriating health insurance programmes that were first developed locally, and taking credit for them. The Indonesian experience underlines the value of policy experimentation, and of a close understanding of the contextual and political factors that drive successful UHC models at the local level. Specific drivers of success and failure should be taken into account when scaling UHC to the national level. In the Indonesian example, UHC became possible when the interests of politically and economically influential groups were either satisfied or neutralised. While technical considerations took a back seat to political priorities in developing the structures for health coverage nationally, they will have to be addressed going forward to achieve sustainable UHC in Indonesia.

Morgan and Herder criticize the Pharmacare Act, Bill C-64. The legislation promises to provide immediate coverage of contraceptives and diabetes medications, but it does not ensure universal, public coverage of those medications. Bill C-64 will merely fill the gaps in Canada's existing patchwork of more than 100 public drug plans and thousands of private ones, cementing into law a model of national pharmacare that was rejected in 2019 by the government's Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, as well as by 4 previous national inquiries. A fill-the-gaps pharmacare system will not give Canada the institutional capacity needed to fairly and efficiently provide universal access to appropriately prescribed, affordably priced, and equitably financed medicines in a global context of powerful players and growing challenges regarding the reasonableness and transparency of pharmaceutical pricing.

Persistent barriers to universal access to medicines are limited social protection in the event of illness, inadequate financing for essential medicines, frequent stock-outs in the public sector, and high prices in the private sector. We argue that greater coherence between human rights law, national medicines policies, and universal health coverage schemes can address these barriers. We present a cross-national content analysis of national medicines policies from 71 countries published between 1990-2016. The World Health Organization's (WHO) 2001 guidelines for developing and implementing a national medicines policy and all 71 national medicines policies were assessed on 12 principles, linking a health systems approach to essential medicines with international human rights law for medicines affordability and financing for vulnerable groups. National medicines policies most frequently contain measures for medicines selection and efficient spending/cost-effectiveness. Four principles (legal right to health; government financing; efficient spending; and financial protection of vulnerable populations) are significantly stronger in national medicines policies published after 2004 than before. Six principles have remained weak or absent: pooling user contributions, international cooperation, and four principles for good governance. Overall, South Africa (1996), Indonesia and South Sudan (2006), Philippines (2011-2016), Malaysia (2012), Somalia (2013), Afghanistan (2014), and Uganda (2015) include the most relevant texts and can be used as models for other settings. We conclude that WHO's 2001 guidelines have guided the content and language of many subsequent national medicines policies. WHO and national policy makers can use these principles and the practical examples identified in our study to further align national medicines policies with human rights law and with Target 3.8 for universal access to essential medicines in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Background South Korea achieved universal health coverage (UHC) through the National Health Insurance (NHI). However, humanitarian sojourners under temporary stay permits were initially excluded. Alongside recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK), the 2019 Amendment of the NHI Act expanded eligibility of the NHI. While this marked significant progress toward greater universality in health care, it also led to unintended consequences for humanitarian sojourners. Methods This study employed a two-fold approach aligned with the trajectory of the Amendment. First, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews to analyze diverse perspectives on the universality of health coverage, the benefits of NHI, and the limitations of policies prior to the 2019 Amendment. Participants included government officials from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ministry of Justice, and NHRCK, as well as humanitarian sojourners sharing real-life experiences. Second, we examined the expected and unexpected outcomes of the Amendment by reviewing legal documents, reports, and media coverage after the Amendment. Specifically, we analyzed precedents set by the Korean Constitutional Court regarding the constitutional litigation, white papers, and interviews published in the news. Results Despite achieving UHC, Korea had limited universality of health coverage prior to the 2019 Amendment, as humanitarian sojourners were excluded from local subscription. The 2019 Amendment of NHI Act expanded eligibility, making local subscription mandatory for humanitarian sojourners. However, unintended consequences emerged from differential treatment in calculating insurance premiums, determining dependents within the same households, and enforcing penalties for missed payments. Such disparities not only continue to restrict access to care but jeopardizes visa extensions for humanitarian sojourners. Conclusions Our findings highlight a critical gap between policy intent and policy impact, revealing the consequences that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations, even under the UHC. Effective implementation of UHC requires a deeper understanding of how government officials and judicial authorities perceive universality and view refugee populations. The discrepancies identified in this study underscore the urgent need for coherent policies that not only expand health coverage but also establish a robust safety net to protect marginalized groups.

Background. In recent years, health insurance (HI) has been chosen by many low- and middle-income countries to obtain an important health policy target—universal health coverage. Vietnam has recently introduced the Revised Health Insurance Law, and the effects of the voluntary health insurance (VHI) and heavily subsidised health insurance (HSHI) programmes have not yet been analysed. Therefore, this study is aimed at examining the impact of these HI programmes on the utilisation of health care services and out-of-pocket health expenditure (OOP) in general and across different health care providers in particular. Methods. Using the two waves of Vietnam Household Living Standard Surveys 2014 and 2016 and the difference-in-difference method, the impacts of VHI and HSHI on health care utilisation and OOP in Vietnam were estimated. Results. For both the VHI and HSHI groups, we found that HI increased the probability of seeking outpatient care, the mean number of outpatient visits, the total number of visits, and the mean number of visits at the district level of health care providers in the last 12 months. However, there was no evidence that the HSHI programmes increased the mean number of inpatient visits and the number of visits at the provincial hospital. We also found that while the VHI programme reduced OOP for both outpatient and inpatient care, the HSHI scheme did not result in a reduction in OOP for hospitalisation, although HI lowered the total OOP. Similarly, we found that for both groups, HI reduced OOP when the insured visited district and provincial hospitals. However, the statistically significant impact was not demonstrated when the enrolees of HSHI programmes visited provincial hospitals. Conclusion. The study offers evidence that the Vietnamese HI scheme increased health care service utilisation and decreased OOP for the participants of the VHI and HSHI programmes. Therefore, the government should continue to consider improving the HI system as a strategy to achieve universal health coverage.

Abstract Universal health coverage (UHC) aims to ensure that all people have access to health services including essential medicines without risking financial hardship. Yet, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) inadequate UHC fails to ensure universal access to medicines and protect the poor and vulnerable against catastrophic spending in the event of illness. A human rights approach to essential medicines in national UHC legislation could remedy these inequities. This study identifies and compares legal texts from national UHC legislation that promote universal access to medicines in the legislation of 16 mostly LMICs: Algeria, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Tunisia and Uruguay. The assessment tool was developed based on WHO’s policy guidelines for essential medicines and international human rights law; it consists of 12 principles in three domains: legal rights and obligations, good governance, and technical implementation. Relevant legislation was identified, mapped, collected and independently assessed by multi-disciplinary, multi-lingual teams. Legal rights and State obligations toward medicines are frequently codified in UHC law, while most good governance principles are less common. Some technical implementation principles are frequently embedded in national UHC law (i.e. pooled user contributions and financial coverage for the vulnerable), while others are infrequent (i.e. sufficient government financing) to almost absent (i.e. seeking international assistance and cooperation). Generally, upper-middle and high-income countries tended to embed explicit rights and obligations with clear boundaries, and universal mechanisms for accountability and redress in domestic law while less affluent countries took different approaches. This research presents national law makers with both a checklist and a wish list for legal reform for access to medicines, as well as examples of legal texts. It may support goal 7 of the WHO Medicines & Health Products Strategic Programme 2016–30 to develop model legislation for medicines reimbursement.

Jonathan Quick and colleagues discuss how women's health world-wide can be improved through universal health coverage.Jonathan Quick and colleagues discuss how women's health world-wide can be improved through universal health coverage.