Background Many countries aspiring to achieve universal health coverage struggle with how to ensure health coverage for undocumented migrants. Using a case study of maternal health care in a Thailand-Myanmar border region this article explores coverage for migrants, service provision challenges and the contribution of a voluntary health insurance program. Methods In 2018 we interviewed 18 key informants who provided, oversaw or contributed to maternal healthcare services for migrant women in the border region of Tak province, Thailand. Results In this region, we found that public and non-profit providers helped increase healthcare coverage beyond undocumented migrants’ official entitlements. Interview participants explained that Free and low-cost antenatal care (ANC) is provided to undocumented migrants through migrant specific clinics, outreach programs and health posts. Hospitals offer emergency birth care, although uninsured migrant patients are subsequently billed for the services. Care providers identified sustainability, institutional debt from unpaid obstetric hospital bills, cross border logistical difficulties and the late arrival of patients requiring emergency lifesaving interventions as challenges when providing care to undocumented migrants. An insurance fund was developed to provide coverage for costly emergency interventions at Thai government hospitals. The insurance fund, along with existing free and low-cost services, helped increase population coverage, range of services and financial protection for undocumented migrants. Conclusions This case study offers considerations for extending health coverage to undocumented populations. Non-profit insurance funds can help to improve healthcare entitlements, provide financial protection and reduce service providers’ debt. However, there are limits to programs that offer voluntary coverage for undocumented migrants. High costs associated with emergency interventions along with gaps in insurance coverage challenge the sustainability for NGO, non-profit and government health providers and may be financially disastrous for patients. Finally, in international border regions with high mobility, it may be valuable to implement and strengthen cross border referrals and health insurance for migrants.

Research on palliative care services in Thailand is incomplete. We conducted a countrywide cross-sectional postal survey to update the situation. We approached hospitals and asked them to respond to a questionnaire. The overall response rate of government hospitals was 61 percent (537 of 882 hospitals). Of these, 59 percent reported that they had personnel trained in palliative care; the majority had received less than a week of such training. In all, 60 percent of the hospitals reported that they offered palliative care services, but 25 percent of these services were delivered by staff who had no palliative care training. The criteria of having at least one trained doctor and nurse on staff was met by 17 percent of the hospitals. Only seven hospitals, most of them associated with medical schools, employed both a doctor and a nurse who had been trained in palliative care for one month or more; these professionals mainly provided hospital and home palliative care team services. Our survey reveals the lack of both health care personnel fully trained in palliative care and specialist palliative care services in Thailand.

Background: Accessibility and quality of hospital-based palliative care in Thailand have received scant attention. Objective: To determine the prevalence of inpatients who require in-hospital palliative care, to identify the proportion with access to specialist palliative care, and to define the factors associated with accessibility to specialist palliative care. Design: A cross-sectional analysis of a multicenter survey. Setting/Subjects: We surveyed all hospitalized patients from Thailand's four regions admitted to 14 tertiary care hospitals. Measurements: We used the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool to identify palliative care patients then reviewed their medical records. We categorized hospitalized palliative care patients into a palliative care consultation group and a nonconsultation group. The odds ratio (OR) between patient characteristics and patient groups was estimated using binary logistic regression. Results: One-fifth (18.7%) of hospitalized patients were palliative care patients, whereas only 17.3% received a specialist palliative care consult. Of these, one-third (28.4%) received advance care planning (ACP) documentation. One-quarter of patients in pain were not prescribed analgesics. The logistic regression analysis revealed that palliative care consultations were associated with patients >65 years (OR = 1.830, 95% confidence interval [CI]:

Context:Palliative care in Thailand was not well developed in the past. Previous studies showed that the actual prescription of opioids was underutilized in palliative care by physicians compared with the estimated opioid need of patients. However, there were no studies regarding the regulation of opioids in Thailand.Aims:To provide an up-to-date overview of the role of multidisciplinary teams in the regulation of opioids in Thai government hospitals.Settings and Design:A questionnaire survey study was conducted from January to April 2012.Materials and Methods:The questionnaire was distributed to entire population of government hospitals in Thailand and all private hospitals in Bangkok. There were 975 hospitals, including 93 private hospitals in Bangkok and 882 government hospitals.Statistical analysis used:Results are presented as a frequency and percentage.Results:Special opioid prescription forms must be signed by doctors for all opioid prescriptions. Three-fourths of hospitals totally prohibited prescribing oral opioids by palliative care Advance Practice Nurses. Pharmacists were permitted to correct the technical errors on a prescription of oral morphine only after notifying the prescribing doctor in nearly 60% of hospitals. In terminal patients who could not go to the hospitals, caregivers were permitted to collect the opioids on behalf of patients in nearly 80% of hospitals.Conclusion:Our results illustrate that the regulation of opioids in government hospitals is mainly dependent on physician judgment. Patients can only receive oral morphine at a hospital pharmacy.

LH and PH have better overall nonopioid and opioid medication availability than CH and GH.