Thailand's health development since the 1970s has been focused on investment in the health delivery infrastructure at the district level and below and on training the health workforce. Deliberate policies increased domestic training capacities for all cadres of health personnel and distributed them to rural and underserved areas. Since 1975, targeted insurance schemes for different population groups have improved financial access to health care until universal health coverage was implemented in 2002. Despite its low gross national income per capita in Thailand, a bold decision was made to use general taxation to finance the Universal Health Coverage Scheme without relying on contributions from members. Empirical evidence shows substantial reduction in levels of out-of-pocket payments, the incidence of catastrophic health spending, and in medical impoverishment. The scheme has also greatly reduced provincial gaps in child mortality. Certain interventions such as antiretroviral therapy and renal replacement therapy have saved the lives of adults. Well designed strategic purchasing contributed to efficiency, cost containment, and equity. Remaining challenges include preparing for an ageing society, primary prevention of non-communicable diseases, law enforcement to prevent road traffic mortality, and effective coverage of diabetes and tuberculosis control.

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.

Benefit package is crucial for implementing universal health coverage (UHC). This editorial analyses how the benefit package of the Thai Universal Coverage Scheme (UC Scheme) evolved from an implicit comprehensive package which covered all conditions and interventions (with a few exceptions), to additional explicit positive lists. In 2002 when the Thai UC Scheme was launched; the comprehensive benefit package, including medicines in the national essential list of medicines, formerly offered by the previous schemes were pragmatically adopted. Later, when capacities of producing evidence on health technology assessment (HTA) increased, rigorous assessment of cost effectiveness is mandatorily required for inclusion of new interventions into the Thai UC Scheme benefit package. This contributed to evidence-informed policy decisions. To prevent emptied promises, whichever policy choices are made about the benefit package, either using a negative or a positive list, developing country governments need to make quality health services available and accessible by the entire population. Political decision on benefit package should be informed by evidence on cost effectiveness, equity dimension and health system capacity to deliver equitable services. Low- and middle-income countries need to strengthen HTA capacity to generate evidence and inform policies.

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.

BackgroundGeographical maldistribution has been a critical concern of health workforce planning in Thailand for years. This study aimed to assess the equity of health workforce distribution in public hospitals affiliated to the Office of Permanent Secretary (OPS) of the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) through the application of “concentration index” (CI).MethodsA cross sectional quantitative design was employed. The dataset comprised 1) health workforce data from the OPS, MOPH in 2016, 2) regional and provincial-level economic data from the National Economic and Social Development Board in 2015, and 3) population data from the Ministry of Interior in 2015. Descriptive statistics, Spearman’s rank correlation, and CI analysis were performed.ResultsThailand had 2.04 health professionals working in public facilities per 1,000 population. Spearman’s correlation found positive relationship in all health professionals. Yet, statistical significance was not found in most health professionals but doctors (P<0.001). Positive correlation was observed in all health cadres at regional and provincial hospitals (rs=0.348, P=0.002). In the CI analysis, the distribution of health professionals across provincial income was relatively equitable in all cadres. Significant CIs were found in doctor density (CI =0.055, P=0.001), all professionals density at district hospitals (CI =–0.049, P=0.012), and all professionals density at provincial and regional hospitals (CI =0.078, P=0.003).ConclusionThe positive CIs implied that the distribution of all health professionals, especially doctors, at provincial and regional hospitals slightly favored the richer provinces. In contrast, the distribution at district hospitals was slightly more concentrated in less well-off provinces. From a macro-view, the distribution of all health professionals in Thailand was relatively equitable across provincial economic status. This might be due to the extensive health infrastructure development and rural retention policies over the past four decades.