NGOs in community health insurance schemes: examples from Guatemala and the Philippines
Introduction
In poor rural communities, access to basic health care is often severely limited by inadequate supply, mainly of sparsely distributed government health centres and hospitals. Access may be further hampered when government funding for health care is reduced and new public financing policies lead to the introduction of user charges in these public health care facilities (Waddington and Enyimayew, 1990; Abel-Smith and Dua, 1998). The financial barriers to access may become even greater when private for-profit services located in nearby towns are the major or only source of care.
National policies may introduce social health insurance, as part of a broad social security system or as a separate programme. However, such schemes are usually implemented in stages, with salaried workers covered first. In many developing countries, the vast majority of the population will not fit into that group, even when the schemes cover both public and private sector employees and when family members are included. Private for-profit health insurance is not likely to cover more than a very small proportion of the population, as the premiums and costs in these schemes are usually far above the average per capita expenditure on health care in the country.
Community initiatives to generate health care financing through voluntary prepayment schemes are an option, but may require a complex development process. An underlying assumption is that the local community sees advantages in taking direct responsibility for the financial stability of their personal health care services. Another assumption is that if the local community members will themselves contribute on a regular basis to create this financing mechanism, the government will give due recognition to these efforts as a form of cost-sharing. In that case, the government will not decrease its current level of funding and will continue to guarantee and improve the provision of public health services. These assumptions are not generally in the forefront in the process of obtaining health care in low-income rural communities and the development of appropriate health care financing mechanisms becomes more complex.
Even if the members of these communities are prepared to take action to assure access to health care on a regular basis, they may have very limited understanding of insurance or prepayment mechanisms. The lack of experience with insurance is even more significant when we consider that illness is a contingency which may not have entailed significant out-of-pocket expenditure for the necessary services in the past. At the household level, it may in fact be easier to `sell' insurance for a new utility, such as a costly appliance or farm machine, than for health care. The marketing of voluntary insurance is further complicated when we expect people to understand and accept solidarity among a large population of community members, beyond their own family.
Once user charges for health care are introduced, the household health care expenditure patterns may change. The application of user charges at the time of illness, when earnings may be reduced, can lead to irrational behaviour, such as delays in seeking care, decisions of which family member should have priority and what services to purchase beyond the initial consultant. Prepayment schemes obviously can rationalize health care behaviour as the financial barrier to seeking care at the time of illness is essentially removed, payments are made throughout the year and not at the time of illness and each insured individual is entitled to benefits in his or her own right.
Understanding of the prepayment/insurance and solidarity concepts are still not enough to launch community health care financing systems using these mechanisms. In the communities we are dealing with, that is, generally low and sometimes unstable income families in rural areas, we may have difficulty in finding the administrative structures we need for efficient registration, premium collection, health care and human resource mobilization as well as financial control systems to operate viable health insurance schemes.
This paper covers attempts to develop such community health care financing schemes in rural populations in two countries: Guatemala and the Philippines. The activities began in the same year (1994) but subsequent development has been very different. The paper will therefore deal with the major factors which have contributed to this unequal progress, as well as other issues that emerge as critical in community health insurance scheme development and sustainability.
In Guatemala and the Philippines, we find similarities in access to basic health care in poor rural areas, as government community health centres are the basic unit for primary health care, including preventive services. In both countries, such basic health services have not yet been established in many rural communities. Recent decisions allow government health care facilities to apply user charges (Nanagas et al., 1995) for all levels of curative care. District and regional hospitals still provide some basic services free of charge, but have recently introduced user charges, starting with fees for diagnostic X-ray and laboratory services.
Over the past two decades, the growth of small private hospitals has spread to many provincial capitals and towns. In the Philippines, these hospitals are mainly for profit, while in Guatemala, many private hospitals in rural areas are nonprofit charitable institutions but charge significant fees. Neither the government nor private hospitals can undertake the primary health care function for dispersed rural populations.
Some protection exists for salaried workers through the social security health insurance systems, but this applies to a very small percentage of the rural populations accounted for by civil servants (such as local government staff and teachers) and salaried employees of national companies. Coverage by commercial for-profit health insurance has been growing in both countries, but is concentrated in urban areas.
In Guatemala there is a clear policy to extend coverage of the social security health insurance programme, but the target beneficiaries of this policy are dependants of the salaried workers now covered and additional labour sectors, such as domestic workers and seasonal workers. In the Philippines, the National Health Insurance Law passed in February 1995 is aimed at providing universal coverage for a comprehensive range of health care benefits (Republic of the Philippines, 1995). However, universal coverage, to include all rural communities, is likely to take at least 15 years. In the meantime, community initiatives to develop health insurance schemes, within the basic guidelines of the National Health Insurance Law, are encouraged.
The following sections will cover the framework, design and current situation of a community health insurance scheme in each of the two countries. The last section will look at success and failure factors relating to the development of both schemes and attempt to reach some general conclusions on community health insurance.
Section snippets
Framework for development
A community health insurance scheme was proposed following local initiatives to create an association to improve access to health care for the community. Barillas is a municipality including a town of around 11,000 residents and many small villages with populations of several hundred residents, reaching a total of 65,000 persons. It covers a large geographic area in the Department of Huehuetenango in the north west of Guatemala. More than 95% of the population are indigenous Mayan Indians.
The
Framework for development
In the Philippines, a community health insurance scheme was created as an activity of a Mother and Child Care Community Based Integrated Project (MCC) in La Union Province. This project follows the basic model of integrated development projects implemented by the international NGO Organization for Education Resources and Training (ORT), in a number of developing countries.
The main components in the ORT MCC Projects are infrastructure, preschool education and basic health services following
Comparison of progress: ASSABA and OHPS
A comparison is hardly justified when one scheme, ASSABA, failed to progress as a community health insurance scheme after the initial registration, while the OHPS scheme has continued to grow over the last several years. The objectives of comparison are to find success and failure factors, bearing in mind the complexity in the development of community health insurance schemes. Some comparison or attempt to explain the differences in progress should therefore be made.
ASSABA, as a grass-roots,
Conclusion
It is clear that the paces of development and achievements of the two community insurance schemes, in Guatemala and in the Philippines, have been very different. The design of the ASSABA scheme was certainly more methodical, with calculations of contribution rates based on sound studies of costs and actual utilization and a series of workshops involving all critical decision makers and local health care providers. Considerable resources were available to support the preparation and start-up
References (10)
- Abel-Smith, B., Dua, A., 1988. Community financing in developing countries: the potential for the health sector. Health...
- Arhin, D., 1995. Rural Health Insurance: A Viable Alternative to User Fees? Department of Public Health and Policy,...
- Costello, M., Palabrica-Costello, M., 1995. Health care financing for the rural poor: a comparison of three policy...
- Evlo, K., Carrin, G., 1992. Finance for health care: part of a broad canvas. World Health Forum, vol....
- Moens, F., 1990. Design, Implementation and evaluation of a community financing scheme for hospital care in developing...
Cited by (32)
Provider payment methods and health worker motivation in community-based health insurance: A mixed-methods study
2014, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Apart from this study, however, hardly any evidence exists on the effect of provider payment methods on health worker satisfaction, job stress and role strain. Some descriptive qualitative evidence suggests that dissatisfaction with the choice of payment methods led to reduced participation rates of health professionals in CBHI schemes in Uganda (Basaza et al., 2007, 2008) and retraction of a hospital's CBHI participation in Guatemala (Ron, 1999). In the case of Nouna, many health workers thought that the mechanism was merely a tool to reduce already scarce necessary resources for health service provision.
Social health insurance in a developing country: The case of the Philippines
2006, Social Science and MedicineWhat are the factors that influence the adaptive market? An empirical study with wheelchair users in Hong Kong
2023, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management