Explore the vast range of titles available.

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010–2019 relative to 1990–2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6–421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0–3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5–1040·3]) residing in south Asia. The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people—the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close—or how far—all populations are in benefiting from UHC. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Since independence, India has struggled to provide its people with universal health coverage. Whether defined in terms of financial protection or access to and effective use of health care, the majority of Indians remain irregularly and incompletely covered. Finally, and most recently, a new generation of Government-Sponsored Health Insurance Schemes (GSHISs) has emerged to provide the poor with financial coverage. Briefly, the main objective of these new GSHISs was to offer financial protection against catastrophic health shocks, defined in terms of an inpatient stay. Between 2007 and 2010, six major schemes have emerged, including one sponsored by the Government of India (GOI) and five state-sponsored schemes. This new wave of schemes provides fully subsidized coverage for a limited package of secondary or tertiary inpatient care, targeting below poverty populations. Similar to the private voluntary insurance products in the country, ambulatory services including drugs are not covered except as part of an episode of illness requiring an inpatient stay. The schemes have organized hospital networks consisting of public and private facilities, and most care funded by these schemes is provided in private hospitals. Ostensibly, the objective of any health insurance scheme is to increase access, utilization, and financial protection, and ultimately improve health status. Due to lack of evaluations and analyses of household data, the authors of this book do not examine the impact of health insurance in terms of these objectives. This book is not meant to highlight problems of the GSHISs, but rather to raise potential challenges and emerging issues that should be addressed to ensure the long-term viability of these schemes and secure their place within the health finance and delivery system.

\"The unique composition and configuration of doctors and hospitals in the U.S. is leading to a crisis in primary care provision. There are significantly more specialists than generalists and many community hospitals and outpatient facilities are concentrated in affluent areas with high rates of comprehensive insurance coverage. These particular features present difficult challenges to policymakers seeking to increase access to care. Carl F. Ameringer shows why the road to universal healthcare is not built on universal finance alone. Policymakers in other countries successfully align finance with delivery to achieve better access, lower costs, and improved population health. This book explains how the U.S. healthcare system developed, and why efforts to expand insurance coverage in the absence of significant changes to delivery could make things worse\"-- Provided by publisher.

The World Health Organization (WHO) states that examining medical financial systems is the most important process in evaluating universal health coverage (UHC). This study used the service coverage index (SCI) as a proxy of the progress toward UHC in eleven Asian countries. We employed a fixed-effects regression model to analyze panel data from 2015 to 2017, to explain the interrelationship between the SCI and major socioeconomic indicators. We also conducted a performance analysis (ratio of achieved SCI level to gross domestic product (GDP) or health expenditure displacement) to examine the balance between the degree of achievements related to UHC and a country’s economic level. The results showed that GDP and health expenditure were significantly positively correlated with the SCI (p < 0.01). The panel data analysis results showed that GDP per capita was a factor that greatly influenced the SCI as well as poverty (partial regression coefficient: 0.0017, 95% CI: 0.0013–0.0021). The results of the performance analysis showed that the Philippines had the highest scores (GDP: 1.84 SCI score/USD per capita, health expenditure: 1.04 SCI score/USD per capita) and South Korea the lowest. We conclude that socioeconomic factors, such as GDP, health expenditure, unemployment, poverty, and population influence the progress of UHC, regardless of system maturity or geographic characteristics.

Background Increasing financial risk protection is a key feature of Universal Health Coverage and the path towards health for all. Publicly Funded Health Insurance Schemes (PFHIS) have been considered as one of the pathways to safeguard against financial shocks and potentially reduce Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE). The south Indian state of Kerala has roughly a decade-long experience in implementing PFHIS. To date, there have been very few assessments of the coverage of these schemes and their impact on expenditure. Aiming to fill this gap, we explored the extent of and inequalities in insurance coverage, as well as choice of providers, and median cost of hospitalization in Kerala among insured and uninsured individuals. Methods A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in four districts of Kerala as part of a larger health systems research study from July–October 2019. We employed multistage random sampling to collect data from 13,064 individuals covering 3234 households in the catchment area of eight primary health care facilities. We used descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analysis. We evaluated socioeconomic disparities using an absolute measure of inequality—the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and a relative measure—the Relative Concentration Index (RCI). Results A substantial proportion of our study respondents reported that they were covered by PFHIS (45.8%). Respondents belonging to lowest and middle wealth quintiles of household had significantly greater odds of being covered by insurance than respondents belonging to the richest wealth quintile. The negative magnitude of RCI [-16.8% (95%CI: -25.3, -8.4)] and SII [-21.5% (95%CI: -36.1, -7.0)] suggest a higher concentration of PFHIS coverage among the poor. Median OOPE for hospitalisation at private health facilities was INR 9000 (approx. USD 108.70) among those covered by PFHIS, whereas it was INR 10500 (approx. USD 126.82) at private health facilities among those not covered by insurance. Conclusion While PFHIS seems to be appropriately targeting poorer populations, among the insured, OOPE for hospitalization persists. Among the uninsured, population subgroups with advantage are spending the greatest amount, raising questions about whether those facing relative disadvantage are forgoing care altogether or seeking care using cheaper, public avenues. Further policy action to more effectively reduce financial burden among left behind eligible populations under PFHIS will be essential to UHC progress in the state.

Governments and organisations must demonstrate accountability and delivery of results. Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) is a European Commission mechanism aiming at enhancing internal control and management. The Health System Strengthening (HSS) for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) programme provides support towards achieving UHC through policy dialogue in 115 countries.Drawing from the ROM review of the HSS for UHC programme, we examine the value of the Commission’s ROM system as a tool to enhance accountability of large Global Health (GH) programmes. We present the lessons learnt and provide specific recommendations about how ROM tools can be employed to strengthen GH accountability.ROM reviews can provide critical data to inform the design, implementation and evaluation of large-scale GH programmes through a well-integrated mixed-methods approach in which quantitative and qualitative components reinforce each other. Recognising the tremendous power of measures of performance, they track available quantitative indicators from baseline to target along the results chain. Firmly grounded on qualitative tools, they also capture the complex nature of health systems, and the critical influence of contextual factors and stakeholder dynamics.Poor data quality and insufficient multistakeholder engagement are persisting but not unsurmountable challenges. As increasing support is provided to strengthen health information and management systems, the process of codeveloping Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks at country level could serve as a tool to enhance mutistakeholder engagement in policy dialogue. The political nature of both results-oriented systems and GH programmes suggests that mechanisms to assess power dynamics should be incorporated into policy dialogues and ROM review processes.

Numerous undocumented and uninsured foreigners living in Japan have faced barriers when trying to obtain appropriate healthcare services, which have occasionally led to issues with unpaid medical bills to medical institutions. Although information on health and socioeconomic status is essential to tackle such issues, relevant data has been unavailable due to difficulties in contacting this population. This study involved a cross-sectional survey using questionnaires concerning the general demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, health profiles, information access, and knowledge/attitude/practice of health insurance of Thai nationals living in Japan. The study participants included Thai nationals who lived in Tokyo and the surrounding prefectures. The survey was conducted mainly at public religious events from September 2022 to December 2022. Overall, the questionnaires were obtained from 84 participants, though 67 participants were included in the final analysis after excluding missing variables. There were participants with unspecified visa status (32.8%) and uninsured status (40.3%). Among them, 86.4% expressed positive attitudes towards health insurance. However, multivariate multivariable regression analyses revealed the low insurance practice status among the unspecified visa group (aOR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00–0.13). Overall, the results reveal limited access to healthcare services in subgroups of Thai immigrants in Japan.

Background: Public providers in Jordan are facing increasing health demands due to human crises. This study aimed to benchmark the unit costs of hospital services in public providers in Jordan to provide insights into the outlook for public health care costs. Methods: The unit costs of hospital services per admission, inpatient days, outpatient visits, emergency visits and surgical operations were estimated using the standard average costing method (top-down) for the fiscal year 2018- 2019. The unit costs per inpatient day were estimated for nine specialities and staff in Jordanian dinars (exchange rate JOD 1 = USD 1.41). Results: The average unit cost per admission in Jordan was JOD 782.300 (USD 1101.80), the per inpatient day cost was JOD 236.600 (USD 333.20), the per bed day cost was JOD 172.900 (USD 244.90), the per outpatient visit cost was JOD 58.400 (USD 82.30), the per operation cost was JOD 449.600 (USD 633.20) and the per emergency room visit cost was JOD 31.800 (USD 44.80). The specialities of ICU/CCU and OB/GYN presented the highest unit costs per inpatient day across providers: JOD 377.800 (USD 532.90) and JOD 362.600 (USD 510.70), respectively. The average salaried unit cost of staff depended mainly on year of employment. Nonetheless, the unit costs varied depending on the service utilization, type of service and organizational outlet. Conclusions: Knowledge of how unit costs vary across public providers in Jordan is essential to outline cost control strategies and inform future research. Institutionalization of the cost information system and high-level governmental support are necessary to generate a routine practice of collecting and sharing cost information.