Efficiency or equity: value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the roles of social values in the reform of coverage decisions for Thailand's Universal Health Coverage (UC) plan in 2009 and 2010.

Design/methodology/approach

Qualitative techniques, including document review and personal communication, were employed for data collection and triangulation. All relevant data and information regarding the reform and three case study interventions were interpreted and analysed according to the thematic elements in the conceptual framework.

Findings

Social values determined changes in the UC plan in two steps: the development of coverage decision guidelines and the introduction of such guidelines in benefit package formulation. The former was guided by process values, while the latter was shaped by different content ideals of stakeholders and policymakers. Analysis of the three interventions suggests that in allocating its resources to subsidise particular services, the UC authority took into account not only cost‐effectiveness, but also budget impacts, equity and solidarity. These social values competed with each other and, in many instances, the prioritisation of benefit candidates was not led solely by evidence, but also by value judgments, even though transparency was recognised as an ultimate goal of reform.

Research limitations/implications

The study findings indicate room for improvement and for future research – the current conceptual framework is inadequate to capture all the crucial elements which influence health prioritisation, as well as their interactions with social values.

Originality/value

The paper fills a gap in literature as it enhances understanding of the effects of social value judgments in real‐life health prioritisation.

Citation

Tantivess, S., Pérez Velasco, R., Yothasamut, J., Mohara, A., Limprayoonyong, H. and Teerawattananon, Y. (2012), "Efficiency or equity: value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 331-342. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261211238972