Search

The aim of this paper is to contribute technical arguments to the debate about the importance of health examination surveys and their continued use during the post-pandemic health financing crisis, and in the context of a technological innovation boom that offers new ways of collecting and analysing individual health data (e.g. artificial intelligence). Technical considerations demonstrate that health examination surveys make an irreplaceable contribution to the local availability of primary health data that can be used in a range of further studies (e.g. normative, burden-of-disease, care cascade, cost and policy impact studies) essential for informing several phases of the health planning cycle (e.g. surveillance, prioritization, resource mobilization and policy development). Examples of the use of health examination survey data in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region (i.e. Finland, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and the WHO Region of the Americas (i.e. Chile, Mexico, Peru and the United States of America) are presented, and reasons why health provider-led data cannot replace health examination survey data are discussed (e.g. underestimation of morbidity and susceptibility to bias). In addition, the importance of having nationally representative random samples of the general population is highlighted and we argue that health examination surveys make a critical contribution to external quality control for a country's health system by increasing the transparency and accountability of health spending. Finally, we consider future technological advances that can improve survey fieldwork and suggest ways of ensuring health examination surveys are sustainable in low-resource settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Private health insurance is playing an increasing role in both high- and low-income countries, yet is poorly understood by researchers and policy-makers. This paper shows that the distinction between private and public health insurance is often exaggerated since well regulated private insurance markets share many features with public insurance systems. It notes that private health insurance preceded many modern social insurance systems in western Europe, allowing these countries to develop the mechanisms, institutions and capacities that subsequently made it possible to provide universal access to health care. We also review international experiences with private insurance, demonstrating that its role is not restricted to any particular region or level of national income. The seven countries that finance more than 20% of their health care via private health insurance are Brazil, Chile, Namibia, South Africa, the United States, Uruguay and Zimbabwe. In each case, private health insurance provides primary financial protection for workers and their families while public health-care funds are targeted to programmes covering poor and vulnerable populations. We make recommendations for policy in developing countries, arguing that private health insurance cannot be ignored. Instead, it can be harnessed to serve the public interest if governments implement effective regulations and focus public funds on programmes for those who are poor and vulnerable. It can also be used as a transitional form of health insurance to develop experience with insurance institutions while the public sector increases its own capacity to manage and finance health-care coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]