Abstract
The purposes of this study are to develop a fundamental budget system of oral care system in Thailand beneath universal overage system from the current situation and then forecast the national oral care expenditure hen the insurance is extended full scheme. The public expenditure including welfare schemes and household expenditure were analyzed to perform the national expenditure. The two methods analyzing public oral care expenditure were presented. The first method was based on the 1996-1998 National Health Account. Another method was blowing up public oral care cost of the 6 provinces in budget year 2000 to be national level. These provinces started the Universal Coverage Scheme since April 1, 2001. The duration of this study was between June- November 2001. The important findings from the study could be divided in 6 areas: 1. Household expenditure for oral careOral care expenditure paid by the household was subject to the household income. The very low proportion of total household consumption though oral diseases are still very high prevalence among Thai people reflected the low level of utilization. Even oral care expenditure in 1996 was highest (about 26.5 Bath/person) but it was only 0.10 % of total household consumption. The 1998-2000 slightly decreasing trend (0.15, 0.13 and 0.11 %) in higher proportion than in 1996 whether the absolute expenditures in 1998-2000 were lower showed that Thai household utilized oral care as a necessary good. Even the 1997 economic crisis has effected Thai households but decreasing rate of oral care expenditure was lower and slower than overall consumption because of its necessity therefore the proportion suddenly increased in 1998 then very slightly decreased. Low level consumption may be caused of psychological cost and impression of its high cost of oral care. 2. Public oral care utilization in six provincesIn fiscal year 2000, the average utilization rate and per capita frequency of the 6 provinces were 10.24 % and 0.16 visit/person, respectively. Notably, people in rural area such Yasothorn, Yala, Payao and Nakornsawan could access the public oral care better than in urban area such Prathumtani. In fiscal year 2001, overall the utilization rate and per capita frequency increased slightly (10.42 % and 0.17 visit, respectively). Sketchy consideration here is that other factors may affected access to oral care rather than sole dental personnel number. Public oral care provision is expected to play important role in early phase of the UCS even the productivity is limited. Average 0.17 visit of oral care utilized by a person of the six provinces in 2001 is an evidence of this situation. Therefore the provision should be productively improved as well as allowed the private sector serving the increasing demand. 3. Public oral care cost in six provincesIn fiscal year 2000, the average full cost of the hospitals was 280 Bath/visit or 413.61 Bath/recipient at utilization rate 10.24%. Among hospital size, number of dental personnel, number of recipient and number of visit, the cost variation mainly related to number of visit rather than other factors. Moreover, the number of visit did not solely varied to number of dental personnel. However, these evidences do not totally conform to general theory that the higher productivity makes the lower cost. This study could not gain type of oral care mostly provided in each hospital. Type of oral care may reflect severity of the disease and complication and directly reflected to oral care cost. Therefore it is not fair to compare the cost among hospitals when only crude utilization was gained. 4. Public and welfare oral care expenditureCalculation the 2000 national oral care expenditure of public sector and welfare schemes from the 6 provinces, two assumptions were needed. Accessibility of oral care of people in other 70 provinces of the country as well as the productivity and unit cost of oral care were assumed to be same as the 6 provinces. While the household spending was decreasing since 1998, the public and welfare expenditure increased instead. This trend reflected important role of the public policy on health insurance including oral care beneath economic stagnation. If the UCS really provides the accessibility beneath the 6-province contexts, the utilization will represent both public and private demand therefore the budget should cover both public and household expenditure which would be 59.50 Bath/person at 2000 price (the public expenditure was 42.35 Bath/person at 2000 price). But sole public facilities can not provide total oral care respond to people therefore private sector may be necessary for the provision towards efficiency. As previous oral care utilization was very low so every year adjustment for appropriate provision and budgeting is needed to serve incremental demand of society. 5. Oral care expenditureThe combination of oral care expenditure of public and welfare and householdout of pocket oral care expenditure performed national oral care expenditure. The oral care expenditure of public sector and welfare schemes was analyzed by 2 methods: to extract the expenditure from 1996 and 1998 National Health Account and to blow up from the 6 provinces. From 1996 to 1998, national oral care expenditure at 1994 price was increasing 0.17 % but only 0.01 % increasing of proportion to the Gross Domestic Product. While national health expenditure decreased 8.16 %, the oral care expenditure proportioned to the health expenditure therefore increased 0.15 % in 1998. Per capita expenditure at current price showed a different figure since national oral care expenditure decreased 1.81 % from 46.35 Bath/person in 1996 to be 50.70 Bath/person in 1998. Adjusting to be 1994 price, the per capita expenditure decreased from 43.04 Bath/person in 1996 to be 42.27 in 1998 or 1.81 % decreasing. Consideration sources of expenditure, household's direct payment was greater than public's both in absolute number and per capita. Notably, per capita household payment decreased 4.02 % from 1996 while the public expenditure increased 1.68 %. Blowing up from the 6 provinces, the per capita and absolute public expenditures were calculated then combined with household expenditure to be nation oral care expenditure. The per capita nation oral care expenditure in 2000 analyzed by this method was 64.43 Bath/person at 2000 price or 50.98 Bath/person at 1994 price. 6. Sensitivity analysis of oral care expenditureSince the UCS started in 2001 and may facilitate the access to public oralcare especially when the scheme allows public-private mixed provision to coverpopulation extensively. Therefore the expenditure may closely vary to the utilization.The sensitivity analysis was conducted to forecast the expenditure when theutilization rate changed and other factors were constant. At 2000 price, when theutilization rate were between 10.24-15.00 per 100 population, per capita nationaloral care expenditure were 64.43-84.12 Bath which were public expenditure 42.35-62.04 Bath. The expenditure would increase 4 Bath per person when the utilizationrate increasing was 1 %.Policy recommendations There are two main areas should be intently done for oral health insurance system towards equity and efficiency :1) The information system embedded in routine working system to administer and self-monitor proper provision and financing are needed. At facilities based, the cost accounting and computerized utilization data are required to be accumulated the provincial or area information. Specific provincial data will be further used to finance the province particularly. Since oral services have various costs due to type of the care, the utilization data should demonstrate types of the care which not only provide the information of accessibility but also present qualitative aspect of the care and personnel's workload.2) To meet the equity purpose, adjusting the different schemes being close to be the same should be based on the oral health need rather than the social or work status. However the collective financing have to be based on the capacity to pay. Indeed, personal oral care seems to be only main part in oral health insurance and oral health promotion is apart considered. The inequity may explicitly exist since the care is based on the service system that tentatively avails for urban or municipal people rather than the rural. Community strengthening to participate in all dimensions (such as to direct, administer, monitor and regulate both provision the care and oral health promotion program in communities may be hopefully way for equity improvement. At least 3 expected consequences could be addressed here which are increasing accessibility to the care, the schemes would particularly respond each area and the oral health status improvement would be real and sustainable. Nevertheless, people will depend on professional care leading to the high cost problem but improper oral health.
