Suchergebnisse

Health is a key contributor to economic growth, well-being and development in any country. Health contributes to the gross domestic product (GDP) growth through productivity, participation and population. Causality is dependent and correlated, with economic growth increases the financial means available to invest into better and more health care services. Health outcomes can be significantly improved through universal health coverage (UHC). UHC involves three dimensions: population, healthcare and financial coverage. Whether UHC actually exists in any country is a contested topic, as no country appears to have coverage for its entire population across all diseases. In addition, countries differ in their approach in implementing UHC. For example, some have social insurance schemes while others rely on private health insurance; some pay their providers through fee-for-service schemes while others pay through capitation payment. Yet, some countries achieve UHC in low and middle income setting and some countries do not - even with high income levels. Evidence shows that the factors which contribute to a workable UHC are those countries which pay close attention to their country's sociocultural needs, alongside a strong political commitment. This in turn strengthens their health care system. As a result, prospects for economic growth are favourable. There is no single blueprint for any country to follow as UHC depends on sociocultural contexts and government policies. Hence, this paper explores the key criteria for a country to initiate UHC. Myanmar is the key case study in this paper. By conducting a comparative analysis on UHC in Thailand and Korea, this paper seeks to address the political commitment; financial arrangement; coverage expansion and benefit package choices the Myanmar government must consider in order to implement UHC. While this is an ambitious health policy for the Myanmar government to implement, failing to consider such a policy will not only lead to further impoverishment for the population, but also negatively impact the national economy.

Background International studies of the health of Indigenous and tribal peoples provide important public health insights. Reliable data are required for the development of policy and health services. Previous studies document poorer outcomes for Indigenous peoples compared with benchmark populations, but have been restricted in their coverage of countries or the range of health indicators. Our objective is to describe the health and social status of Indigenous and tribal peoples relative to benchmark populations from a sample of countries. Methods Collaborators with expertise in Indigenous health data systems were identified for each country. Data were obtained for population, life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, low and high birthweight, maternal mortality, nutritional status, educational attainment, and economic status. Data sources consisted of governmental data, data from non-governmental organisations such as UNICEF, and other research. Absolute and relative differences were calculated. Findings Our data (23 countries, 28 populations) provide evidence of poorer health and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples than for non-Indigenous populations. However, this is not uniformly the case, and the size of the rate difference varies. We document poorer outcomes for Indigenous populations for: life expectancy at birth for 16 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1 year in 15 populations; infant mortality rate for 18 of 19 populations with a rate difference greater than one per 1000 livebirths in 16 populations; maternal mortality in ten populations; low birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in three populations; high birthweight with the rate difference greater than 2% in one population; child malnutrition for ten of 16 populations with a difference greater than 10% in five populations; child obesity for eight of 12 populations with a difference greater than 5% in four populations; adult obesity for seven of 13 populations with a difference greater than 10% in four populations; educational attainment for 26 of 27 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 24 populations; and economic status for 15 of 18 populations with a difference greater than 1% in 14 populations. Interpretation We systematically collated data across a broader sample of countries and indicators than done in previous studies. Taking into account the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we recommend that national governments develop targeted policy responses to Indigenous health, improving access to health services, and Indigenous data within national surveillance systems.