AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded.
RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three Malaysian public hospitals namely Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz and the National Cancer Institute using a multi-level sampling technique to recruit 630 respondents from February 2020 to February 2021. CHE was defined as incurring a monthly health expenditure of more than 10% of the total monthly household expenditure. A validated questionnaire was used to collect the relevant data.
RESULTS: The CHE level was 54.4%. CHE was higher among patients of Indian ethnicity (P = 0.015), lower level education (P = 0.001), those unemployed (P < 0.001), lower income (P < 0.001), those in poverty (P < 0.001), those staying far from the hospital (P < 0.001), living in rural areas (P = 0.003), small household size (P = 0.029), moderate cancer duration (P = 0.030), received radiotherapy treatment (P < 0.001), had very frequent treatment (P < 0.001), and without a Guarantee Letter (GL) (P < 0.001). The regression analysis identified significant predictors of CHE as lower income aOR 18.63 (CI 5.71-60.78), middle income aOR 4.67 (CI 1.52-14.41), poverty income aOR 4.66 (CI 2.60-8.33), staying far from hospital aOR 2.62 (CI 1.58-4.34), chemotherapy aOR 3.70 (CI 2.01-6.82), radiotherapy aOR 2.99 (CI 1.37-6.57), combination chemo-radiotherapy aOR 4.99 (CI 1.48-16.87), health insurance aOR 3.99 (CI 2.31-6.90), without GL aOR 3.38 (CI 2.06-5.40), and without health financial aids aOR 2.94 (CI 1.24-6.96).
CONCLUSIONS: CHE is related to various sociodemographic, economic, disease, treatment and presence of health insurance, GL and health financial aids variables in Malaysia.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study.
METHODS: In total, 774 households from four states in Malaysia completed face-to-face interviews. A validated structured questionnaire was used, which was composed of a combination of open-ended questions, bidding games and contingent valuation methods regarding the participants' willingness to pay.
RESULTS: The study found that the majority of households supported the establishment of the National Health Financing Scheme, and half proposed that a government body should manage the scheme. Most (87.5%) of the households were willing to contribute 0.5-1% of their salaries to the scheme through monthly deductions. Over three-quarters (76.6%) were willing to contribute to a higher level scheme (1-2%) to gain access to both public and private healthcare basic services. Willingness to pay for the National Health Financing Scheme was significantly higher among younger persons, females, those located in rural areas, those with a higher income and those with an illness.
CONCLUSION: There is a high level of acceptance for the National Health Financing Scheme in the Malaysian community, and they are willing to pay for a scheme organised by a government body. However, acceptance and willingness to pay are strongly linked to household socio-economic status. Policymakers should initiate plans to establish the National Health Financing Scheme to provide the necessary financing for a sustainable health system.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present study was to assess the ability to pay among Malaysian households as preparation for a future national health financing scheme.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving representative samples of 774 households in Peninsular Malaysia.
FINDINGS: A majority of households were found to have the ability to pay for their health care. Household expenditure on health care per month was between MYR1 and MYR2000 with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 73.54 (142.66), or in a percentage of per-month income between 0.05% and 50% with mean (SD) 2.74 (5.20). The final analysis indicated that ability to pay was significantly higher among younger and higher-income households.
CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic and socioeconomic statuses are important eligibility factors to be considered in planning the proposed national health care financing scheme to shield the needed group from catastrophic health expenditures.
METHODS: A total of 37 in-depth interviews were conducted of 44 stakeholders from July 2018 to July 2019. A mixed-methods analysis combining major themes from qualitative interviews with policy document reviews was conducted. Descriptive analysis of publicly available secondary data, namely revenues collected at government healthcare facilities, was conducted to contextualise the policy review and qualitative findings.
RESULTS: We found that migrant workers and employers were unaware of SPIKPA enrolment and entitlements. Higher fees for non-citizens result in delayed care-seeking. While the Malaysian government nearly doubled non-citizen healthcare fees revenues from RM 104 to 182 million (USD 26 to 45 million) between 2014 to 2018, outstanding revenues tripled from RM 16 to 50 million (USD 4 to 12 million) in the same period. SPIKPA coverage is likely inadequate in providing financial risk protection to migrant workers, especially with increased non-citizens fees at public hospitals. Undocumented workers and other migrant populations excluded from SPIKPA contribution to unpaid fees revenues are unknown. Problems described with the previous Foreign Workers Compensation Scheme (FWCS), could be partially addressed by SOCSO, in theory. Nevertheless, questions remain on the feasibility of implementing elements of SOCSO, such as recurring payments to workers and next-of-kin overseas.
CONCLUSION: Malaysia is moving towards migrant inclusion with the provision of SOCSO for documented migrant workers, but more needs to be done. Here we suggest the expansion of the SPIKPA insurance scheme to include all migrant populations, while broadening its scope towards more comprehensive coverage, including essential primary care.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we include 196 homeless people aged above 18 years, Malaysian who were able to communicate with interviewers, and respondents who were not aggressive. These respondents were transits at Pusat Transit Gelandangan Kuala Lumpur and Anjung Singgah Kuala Lumpur and were available during interview sessions. They were selected via simple random sampling and were interviewed via face to face guided interviews using a validated structured questionnaire. Data were analysed descriptively, as well as using bivariate and multivariate analysis to explore the associated factors.
RESULTS: The study showed that 57.7% homeless utilized the health services with only 37.8% assessed government health services. Only 42.5% of the respondents use their own money and 46.9% received aids to finance their health. Major influencing factors that influence homeless people to use their own money for health services were education level, income and disability, with adjusted OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.07-9.25), 0.08 (0.029-3.07) and 0.05 (0.003-0.88) while p value was 0.037,
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Heart Institute of Malaysia involving 503 patients who were hospitalized during the year prior to the survey.
RESULTS: The mean annual out-of-pocket health spending for IHD was MYR3045 (at the time US$761). Almost 16% (79/503) suffered from catastrophic health spending (out-of-pocket health spending ≥40% of household non-food expenditures), 29.2% (147/503) were unable to pay for medical bills, 25.0% (126/503) withdrew savings to help meet living expenses, 16.5% (83/503) reduced their monthly food consumption, 12.5% (63/503) were unable to pay utility bills and 9.0% (45/503) borrowed money to help meet living expenses.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the economic impact of IHD on patients in Malaysia was considerable and the prospect of economic hardship likely to persist over the years due to the long-standing nature of IHD. The findings highlight the need to evaluate the present health financing system in Malaysia and to expand its safety net coverage for vulnerable patients.