We examine the potential and limitations of primary health care in contributing to the achievement of the health-related sustainable development goals (SDGs), and recommend policies to enable a functioning primary health-care system. Governments have recently reaffirmed their commitment to the SDGs through the 2018 Declaration of Astana, which redefines the three functions of primary health care as: service provision, multisectoral actions and the empowerment of citizens. In other words, the health-related SDGs cannot be achieved by the provision of health-care services alone. Some health issues are related to environment, necessitating joint efforts between local, national and international partners; other issues require public awareness (health literacy) of preventable illnesses. However, the provision of primary health care, and hence achievement of the SDGs, is hampered by several issues. First, inadequate government spending on health is exacerbated by the small proportions allocated to primary health care. Second, the shortage and maldistribution of the health workforce, and chronic absenteeism in some countries, has led to a situation in which staffing levels are inversely related to poverty and need. Third, the health workforce is not trained in multisectoral actions, and already experiences workloads of an overwhelming nature. Finally, health illiteracy is common among the population, even in developed countries. We recommend that governments increase spending on health and primary health care, implement interventions to retain the rural health workforce, and update the pre-service training curricula of personnel to include skills in multisectoral collaboration and enhanced community engagement.

Background At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage. Results Three-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay. Conclusions The guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

No abstract

No abstract

Participatory and responsive governance in universal health coverage (UHC) systems synergistically ensure the needs of citizens are protected and met. In Thailand, UHC constitutes of three public insurance schemes: Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme, Social Health Insurance and Universal Coverage Scheme. Each scheme is governed through individual laws. This study aimed to identify, analyse and compare the legislative provisions related to participatory and responsive governance within the three public health insurance schemes and draw lessons that can be useful for other low-income and middle-income countries in their legislative process for UHC. The legislative provisions in each policy document were analysed using a conceptual framework derived from key literature. The results found that overall the UHC legislative provisions promote citizen representation and involvement in UHC governance, implementation and management, support citizens’ ability to voice concerns and improve UHC, protect citizens’ access to information as well as ensure access to and provision of quality care. Participatory governance is legislated in 33 sections, of which 23 are in the Universal Coverage Scheme, 4 in the Social Health Insurance and none in the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme. Responsive governance is legislated in 24 sections, of which 18 are in the Universal Coverage Scheme, 2 in the Social Health Insurance and 4 in the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme. Therefore, while several legislative provisions on both participatory and responsive governance exist in the Thai UHC, not all schemes equally bolster citizen participation and government responsiveness. In addition, as legislations are merely enabling factors, adequate implementation capacity and commitment to the legislative provisions are equally important.