World Urged To Follow Thai Healthcare Model

[Roadman]

Follow the thai model...you have got to be joking. The bullcrap that flows from Thailand and thai's never ceases to amuse. It is OK for selective surgery etc. especially for westerners coming in with their currencies.

The day the thai's can catch up with the Kiwi model then they will be somewhere close. My partner has an autoimmune disease that is hers for life. The cost for her to live in Thailand fulltime per year would be ฿300,000 (฿200,000 for drugs and ฿100,000 for specialists) which is $NZ12,000 and none of that is subsidised in Thailand. Here in NZ where we live most of the year she has a high use community services card which gives her all her speciallists and any hospital charges free, and she pays $3 each three month period for her $NZ8,000 per year government funded, no insurance required drug bill.

$NZ12 per year in NZ for her to stay alive vs ฿300,000 in Thailand. The bullcrap that flows from Thailand most of the time is pathetic.

[tlansford]

Follow the thai model...you have got to be joking. The bullcrap that flows from Thailand and thai's never ceases to amuse. It is OK for selective surgery etc. especially for westerners coming in with their currencies.

The day the thai's can catch up with the Kiwi model then they will be somewhere close. My partner has an autoimmune disease that is hers for life. The cost for her to live in Thailand fulltime per year would be ฿300,000 (฿200,000 for drugs and ฿100,000 for specialists) which is $NZ12,000 and none of that is subsidised in Thailand. Here in NZ where we live most of the year she has a high use community services card which gives her all her speciallists and any hospital charges free, and she pays $3 each three month period for her $NZ8,000 per year government funded, no insurance required drug bill.

$NZ12 per year in NZ for her to stay alive vs ฿300,000 in Thailand. The bullcrap that flows from Thailand most of the time is pathetic.

The article already stated that the Thai system covers 75% of the population and that it has reduced illness-related bankruptcies and reduced poverty in the 10 years of the program. Those are results that the WHO would like to see replicated in other developing countries. That is OK, isn't it? I think it's not bad.

Just to note, last time I looked, New Zealand was not a developing country. The Thai system doesn't measure up against the French system, either, but that is not the point that the WHO was trying to make.

Edited January 30, 2012 by tlansford

[Chris Lawrence]

Then a truck load of personal experience, which only wastes time reading.

I don't think first hand, personal experience which describes the medical service/product received as a waste of time to read. The end product of how well the patient was cared for and his perception of the service is a key factor in determining how good (or bad) a program is working. While the personal experience described to date has been a small sample size it never the less gives an indicator of the universal health care program. A program can look great on paper but the actual product/service may suck (or vice versa).

Pib, what the article doesn't say is how? Personal experience on TV is a predominate ex-pat view, which is not representing the target population, Thais. Affordability of any health scheme was not outlined?

I agree on the sucking, as a lot of health systems have this characteristic built in. The other factor with most health systems is that delivery is more than likely to come from in part from the private sector. There is a lot of competition for the health dollar. In Australia the health system cannot communicate electronically. There is several companies that can deliver a secure service, but due to politics and the money factor (profit) the jury is still out on this one.

Health systems are complicated, and this article does nothing to explain why this service is better than others.

[citizen33]

The OP article is a garbled account of a recent report published at the PMA conference. The National Health Security Office and the three research centres under the MoPH umbrella undertook a major 10 Year Assessment of the Universal Coverage Scheme, with five teams of mainly Thai academics and researchers.

The evidence was then evaluated and reported by eight international experts, led by Dr Tim Evans from BRAC, and including representatives from World Bank, WHO, ILO, Rockefeller Foundation and other overseas universities.

As others above have pointed out, the progress made by Thailand needs to be seen in the context of health care systems in other low and middle income countries. The UCS is not perfect but it is better than rivals at this level of development and delivers a rather good bang for the buck. The various aspects examined in the 10 Year Assessment are described in a soon to be available synthesis report and there is some other more accurate press coverage (mostly in Thai I'm afraid)

http://www.matichon....pid=03&catid=03

http://www.komchadlu...E%E0%B8%AF.html

http://www.ftawatch.org/all/news/26693

The Rockefeller Foundation has announced in the last few days that it is allocating major grant funding to disseminate lessons from Thailand to other Southeast Asian countries.

P.S. The 75% figure is a mistake. Total coverage of the three public insurance schemes is more than 95%.

Edited February 2, 2012 by metisdead
Link to Bangkok Post removed.

[animatic]

Obviously not all part of the world can afford the high levels of medical care those in the developed parts have come to expect.

As an American I have absolutely no doubt that the US would have a lot to learn from Thailand in this area, as our health care system is absolutely criminal in its catering almost solely to our elites and almost complete abandonment of those most in need. The key challenge in any country is making a very minimum basic level as freely and fairly available to as many people as possible.

The fundamental problem is the focus on gee-whiz tech lets-see-whats-possible, as opposed to ensuring ordinary but critical cost-effective measures are available for all. Unfortunately such a shift means denying the most expensive solutions to the publicly supported, if the rich want to take advantage of them they their private insurance can pay for it.

In a poor country, or one where the population doesn't want the poor to be "too subsidized", what many Westerners would consider basic care needs to be denied to many.

The issue of pay for people in the medical profession is way off the charts on both ends - the US on one side, where becoming a doctor is assumed to be a guaranteed gravy train to IMO a criminal extent, and Thailand, where it is impossible for them to live on their normal salaries, and working for a hospital is basically volunteering in exchange for access to patients to promote your private after-hours services where you make your living.

I don't think anyone claims that Thailand has the whole conundrum solved, but if WHO states that it's macro-level organisational scheme is a good example for other less-developed countries to follow, I heartily congratulate this wonderful country and share in its pride for this important recognition.

Agree with the post. As an American, I agree that the USA could actually learn from Thailand - and from every industrialized country on the planet.

Just one point, however,

Unfortunately such a shift means denying the most expensive solutions to the publicly supported, if the rich want to take advantage of them they their private insurance can pay for it.

There are countries, like France & Germany, where this is not generally the case. At least I have never heard of a procedure that would only be covered if you were outside of the system. (I don't use the words "private insurance", because in France it is a mix of public and private insurances).

The USA would be better off studying France's health care,

never lived anywhere it worked better for all and kept the quality up.

In comparison Thailands is in name only.

[tlansford]

The OP article is a garbled account of a recent report published at the PMA conference. The National Health Security Office and the three research centres under the MoPH umbrella undertook a major 10 Year Assessment of the Universal Coverage Scheme, with five teams of mainly Thai academics and researchers.

The evidence was then evaluated and reported by eight international experts, led by Dr Tim Evans from BRAC, and including representatives from World Bank, WHO, ILO, Rockefeller Foundation and other overseas universities.

As others above have pointed out, the progress made by Thailand needs to be seen in the context of health care systems in other low and middle income countries. The UCS is not perfect but it is better than rivals at this level of development and delivers a rather good bang for the buck. The various aspects examined in the 10 Year Assessment are described in a soon to be available synthesis report and there is some other more accurate press coverage (mostly in Thai I'm afraid)

http://www.matichon....pid=03&catid=03

http://www.komchadlu...E%E0%B8%AF.html

http://www.ftawatch.org/all/news/26693

The Rockefeller Foundation has announced in the last few days that it is allocating major grant funding to disseminate lessons from Thailand to other Southeast Asian countries.

P.S. The 75% figure is a mistake. Total coverage of the three public insurance schemes is more than 95%.

Thanks for the links and the correction on the 75% number which seemed ridiculously low to me.

[cowslip]

THe person probably had been camping the DD cabinet before making that statement.

whereas the idea of universal healthcare is excellent - in practice in Thailand corruption, lack of patient rights and poorly trained staff (with "fake" qualifications even) make it a rather poor example.

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to Bangkok Post has been removed:

31) Bangkok Post do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post publications will be deleted from the forum. Please note that this is a decision by the Bangkok Post, not by Thaivisa.com and any complaints or other issues concerning this rule should be directed to them. Quotes from and links to Phuketwan are also not allowed and will also be removed. In special cases forum Administrators or the news team may use these sources.

[Buchholz]

Inspired by Thailand's successful universal healthcare scheme, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is planning to encourage a similar model worldwide.

WHO may first wish to contact the Rural Doctors Society who are today urging hospitals to boycott the 30 baht health scam.

[airconsult]

Stupid question, but I assume a foreigner married to a Thai would not be allowed to part take in the system. I guess you could use the $1 a visit system if u took up Thai nationality!

Hmm - for the 30thb scheme, I believe a thai ID card is required, however after using 5 or 6 different hospitals during my years here (various minor injuries and ailments) my general preference is for a large government hospital in bangkok.

eg. A couple of times I have stupidly strained my back - government hospital price for the "magic needle" to stop the pain - 400thb. Private hospital price - 1,900thb (1,000 for the doctor, 600 for medicine, 300 labelled as "general health care").

In fact any time I have had the flu bad enough and wandered into a private hospital it has cost me at least 2,400thb in examination and medicine (if you live here, you know what a joke that is compared to chemist prices).

Cheers

[airconsult]

Inspired by Thailand's successful universal healthcare scheme, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is planning to encourage a similar model worldwide.

WHO may first wish to contact the Rural Doctors Society who are today urging hospitals to boycott the 30 baht health scam.

Perhaps I am a bit suspicious of doctor's societies (as they must campaign for their members), but I suspect their problem with the 30thb scheme is that unlike in a private hospital, the hospital cannot charge a separate doctor's consultation fee. I am sure they are campaigning for a slice of the action. In another post you might note that the doctor's consultation fee is 1,000thb. Even if they only manage to get 10% of that for the doctor, add up the 50 patients the doctor might see.... hmm, 5,000thb per day.... not bad at all...

Of course in my youth in aust, my parents were doctors and I watched how the AMA there works - that makes you a bit jaded about health care.

Cheers

[Unkomoncents]

Ha! At least 'The Nation' has a sense of humor...What creative interpretation.

[Buchholz]

Inspired by Thailand's successful universal healthcare scheme, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is planning to encourage a similar model worldwide.

WHO may first wish to contact the Rural Doctors Society who are today urging hospitals to boycott the 30 baht health scam.

Perhaps I am a bit suspicious of doctor's societies (as they must campaign for their members), but I suspect their problem with the 30thb scheme is that unlike in a private hospital, the hospital cannot charge a separate doctor's consultation fee

Actually, it's more the opposite.

The rural doctors complaint is that the poor rural families might have difficulty paying the 30 baht and that the universal healthcare should go back to being free like it was before being changed by the current government.

.

[citizen33]

In fact, the co-payment hasn't yet been re-introduced, and the latest gossip is that the policy may stall. The Rural Doctors' Society is one of the groups opposing bringing back the charge; it doesn't oppose the universal coverage scheme. The hot topic at the moment isn't the 30 baht co-payment, but anticipated changes to the National Health Security Board that will give the private hospital groups and the MoPH conservatives a lot more influence. The rural doctors also staunchly oppose that move.

Edited February 6, 2012 by citizen33

[WarpSpeed]

Now if they could only find a way to pay the doctors and nurses salary.........

Hard man to please...