Download Free Global Monitoring Report On Financial Protection In Health 2019 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Global Monitoring Report On Financial Protection In Health 2019 and write the review.

This report is the first of its kind to measure health service coverage and financial protection to assess countries' progress towards universal health coverage. It shows that at least 400 million people do not have access to one or more essential health services and 6% of people in low- and middle-income countries are tipped into or pushed further into extreme poverty because of health spending. Universal health coverage (UHC) means that all people receive the quality essential health services they need without being exposed to financial hardship. A significant number of countries at all levels of development are embracing the goal of UHC as the right thing to do for their citizens. It is a powerful social equalizer and contributes to social cohesion and stability. Every country has the potential to improve the performance of its health system in the main dimensions of UHC: coverage of quality services and financial protection for all. Priorities strategies and implementation plans for UHC will differ from one country to another. Enhanced and expanded monitoring of health under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should seek to build on that experience sharpening our focus on the key health service and financial protection interventions that underpin UHC. Effective UHC tracking is central to achieving the global goals for poverty alleviation and health improvement set by the World Bank Group and WHO. Without it policymakers and decision-takers cannot say exactly where they are or set a course for where they want to go. They cannot know whether they are focussing their efforts in the right areas or whether their efforts are making a difference. Monitoring is thus fundamental to the achievement of UHC objectives. It will also be vital to the realization of the SDGs. This report is a critical step to show how monitoring progress can be done telling us what the state of coverage of interventions and financial protection is and telling us where to focus most.
Over the past two decades, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank have been tracking financial protection using household survey data to compare how much people spend out of pocket on health care with their household’s ability to pay. For the first time, this joint report establishes global and regional 2015 baselines for an SDG indicator of catastrophic health spending and infers from previous trends the challenges to come in protecting people from the financial consequences of paying out of pocket for the health services they need.
Abstract: Health systems are not just about improving health: good ones also ensure that people are protected from the financial consequences of receiving medical care. Anecdotal evidence suggests health systems often perform badly in this respect, apparently with devastating consequences for households, especially poor ones and near-poor ones. Two principal methods have been used to measure financial protection in health. Both relate a household's out-of-pocket spending to a threshold defined in terms of living standards in the absence of the spending: the first defines spending as catastrophic if it exceeds a certain percentage of the living standards measure; the second defines spending as impoverishing if it makes the difference between a household being above and below the poverty line. The paper provides an overview of the methods and issues arising in each case, and presents empirical work in the area of financial protection in health, including the impacts of government policy. The paper also reviews a recent critique of the methods used to measure financial protection.
World Health Statistics 2019 summarizes recent trends and levels in life expectancy and causes of death, and reports on the health and health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and associated targets. Where possible, the 2019 report disaggregates data by WHO region, World Bank income group, and sex; it also discusses differences in health status and access to preventive and curative services, particularly in relation to differences between men and women.
Abstract: "While there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence on the economic effects of adverse health shocks, there is relatively little hard empirical evidence. The author builds on recent empirical work to explore in the context of postreform Vietnam two related issues: (1) how far household income and medical care spending responds to health shocks, and (2) how far household consumption is protected against health shocks. The results suggest that adverse health shocks - captured by negative changes in body mass index (BMI) - are associated with reductions in earned income. This appears to be only partly - if at all - due to a reverse feedback from income changes to BMI changes. By contrast, there is a hint - the relevant coefficient is not significant - that adverse BMI shocks may result in increases in unearned income. This may reflect additional gifts, remittances, and so on, from family and friends following the health shock. Medical spending is found to increase following an adverse health shock, but not among those with health insurance. The impact for the uninsured is large, equal in absolute size to the income loss associated with a BMI shock. The lack of impact for the insured points to complete insurance against the medical care costs associated with health shocks, and is consistent with the very generous coverage of Vietnam's health insurance program in this period. The question arises: have Vietnamese households been able to hold their food and nonfood consumption constant in the face of these income reductions and extra medical care outlays? The results suggest not. For the sample as a whole, both food and nonfood consumption are found to be responsive to health shocks, indicating an inability to smooth nonmedical consumption in the face of health shocks. Further analysis reveals some interesting differences across different groups within the sample. Households with insurance come no closer to smoothing nonmedical consumption than uninsured households. Furthermore, and somewhat counterintuitively, better-off households - including insured households - fare worse than poorer households in smoothing their nonmedical consumption in the face of health shocks, despite the fact that in the case of insured households there are no medical bills associated with an adverse health event. Why the poor rely on dissaving and borrowing to such an extent, and do not apparently reduce their food and nonfood consumption following an adverse health shock while the better-off do, may be because the levels of food and nonfood consumption of the poor are simply too low relative to basic needs to enable them to cut back in the face of an adverse BMI shock."--World Bank web site.
In the 30 years since the inception of the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, or SUS), Brazil has reduced health inequalities, and improved coverage and access to health care. However, mobilising sufficient financing for the universal health coverage mandate of SUS has been a constant challenge, not helped by persistent inefficiencies in the use of resources in the Brazilian health system.