Austeridade, predominância privada e falha de governo na saúde / Brazilian healthcare in the context of austerity: private sector dominant, government sector failing

Resumo O trabalho apresenta os argumentos favoráveis à intervenção governamental no financiamento e na regulação na área de saúde. Descreve o arranjo organizacional do sistema de saúde brasileiro para refletir sobre a agenda da austeridade proposta para o país. Com base na literatura da economia da saúde, o artigo discute a hipótese de que o setor saúde no Brasil funciona sob a dominância privada. Utiliza as categorias de análise das despesas nacionais com saúde. Os dados são analisados por meio de estatística descritiva. A comparação internacional dos indicadores de despesas com saúde mostra que a participação do gasto público brasileiro na saúde é pouco expressivo. Os gastos por desembolso direto são elevados e comprometem a equidade. O setor de planos privados de saúde desempenha um papel crucial na provisão e no financiamento. Ao contrário da crença da agenda da austeridade, a despesa pública não pode ser constrangida porque o governo tem fracassado na provisão adequada de serviços aos pobres. O artigo argumenta que, como a Constituição não vetou a atuação do segmento privado, os interesses com maior capacidade de vocalização foram bem sucedidos em impor as suas preferências na configuração do setor.

Abstract This paper presents the arguments in favor of government intervention in financing and regulation of health in Brazil. It describes the organizational arrangement of the Brazilian health system, for the purpose of reflection on the austerity agenda proposed for the country. Based on the literature in health economics, it discusses the hypothesis that the health sector in Brazil functions under the dominance of the private sector. The categories employed for analysis are those of the national health spending figures. An international comparison of indicators of health expenses shows that Brazilian public spending is a low proportion of total spending on Brazilian health. Expenditure on individuals' health by out-of-pocket payments is high, and this works against equitability. The private health services sector plays a crucial role in provision, and financing. Contrary to the belief put forward by the austerity agenda, public expenditure cannot be constrained because the government has failed in adequate provision of services to the poor. This paper argues that, since the Constitution did not veto activity by the private sector segment of the market, those interests that have the greatest capacity to vocalize have been successful in imposing their preferences in the configuration of the sector.

Has the Copayment Ceiling Improved Financial Protection in the Korean National Health Insurance System? Evidence From the 2009 Policy Change / 예방의학회지

OBJECTIVES: To relieve the financial burden faced by households, the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) system introduced a “copayment ceiling,” which evolved into a differential ceiling in 2009, with the copayment ceiling depending on patients’ income. This study aimed to examine the effect of the differential copayment ceiling on financial protection and healthcare utilization, particularly focusing on whether its effects varied across different income groups. METHODS: This study obtained data from the Korea Health Panel. The number of households included in the analysis was 6555 in 2008, 5859 in 2009, 5539 in 2010, and 5372 in 2011. To assess the effects of the differential copayment ceiling on utilization, out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, and catastrophic payments, various random-effects models were applied. Utilization was measured as treatment days, while catastrophic payments were defined as OOP payments exceeding 10% of household income. Among the right-hand side variables were the interaction terms of the new policy with income levels, as well as a set of household characteristics. RESULTS: The differential copayment ceiling contributed to increased utilization regardless of income levels both in all patients and in cancer patients. However, the new policy did not seem to reduce significantly the incidence of catastrophic payments among cancer patients, and even increased the incidence among all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The limited effect of the differential ceiling can be attributed to a high proportion of direct payments for services not covered by the NHI, as well as the relatively small number of households benefiting from the differential ceilings; these considerations warrant a better policy design.

Cost analysis for the management of acute coronary syndrome using different quality of care indicators

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the economic burden for nonfatal uncomplicated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using 100% compliance to certain a) non-invasive or b) invasive and non-invasive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions with class I recommendations in the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) clinical practice guidelines for ACS in three tertiary hospitals using the societal perspective. It also determined the costs using the patient perspective in the setting of one private tertiary hospital. METHODS: This study was a cost analysis that included a) costs of patient resources, b) production losses, and c) costs of other resources or sectors, from hospitalization to one month post-discharge for ACS. Several models were constructed due to variations in the costs of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the three settings. RESULTS: Using the societal perspective, one model for non-invasive options yielded the following (costs as of January 31, 2009): hospital A, Php87,014 - 124,799; hospital B, Php75,592 - 96,072; hospital C, Php71,969 - 92,148. Excluding fibrinolytic therapy, the lowest total cost would be Php65,000. However, if coronary angiography was added to the models for hospital C, the cost was Php107,154 - 134,574 (coronary angiography was not available in hospitals A and B). Using the patient perspective, the adjusted mean cost for the model which used the least expensive medication was Php96,421 (Standard Deviation = 34,076). CONCLUSION: The economic burden for nonfatal uncomplicated ACS may range from Php65,000 - 134,574.