Health systems in East Asia: what can developing countries learn from Japan and the Asian Tigers?

Abstract

The health systems of Japan and the Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan), and the recent reforms to them, provide many potentially valuable lessons to East Asia's developing countries. All five systems have managed to keep a check on health spending despite their different approaches to financing and delivery. These differences are reflected in the progressivity of health finance, but the precise degree of progressivity of individual sources and the extent to which households are vulnerable to catastrophic health payments depend on the design features of the system - the height of any ceilings on social insurance contributions, the fraction of health spending covered by the benefit package, the extent to which the poor face reduced copayments, whether there are caps on copayments, and so on. On the delivery side, too, Japan and the Tigers offer some interesting lessons. Singapore's experience with corporatizing public hospitals - rapid cost and price inflation, a race for the best technology, and so on - illustrates the difficulties of corporatization. Korea's experience with a narrow benefit package illustrates the danger of providers shifting demand from insured services with regulated prices to uninsured services with unregulated prices. Japan, in its approach to rate setting for insured services, has managed to combine careful cost control with fine-tuning of profit margins on different types of care. Experiences with DRGs in Korea and Taiwan point to cost-savings but also to possible knock-on effects on service volume and total health spending. Korea and Taiwan both offer important lessons for the separation of prescribing and dispensing, including the risks of compensation costs outweighing the cost savings caused by more 'rational' prescribing, and cost-savings never being realized because of other concessions to providers, such as allowing them to have onsite pharmacists.

Universal health insurance coverage for 1.3 billion people: What accounts for China's success?

“…Pursuing universal coverage is an ongoing "global health transition" [67], for which China's experience offers several lessons. First, China joined a group of countries (e.g., Japan and Korea) that achieved universal health insurance coverage before becoming high-income countries [68]. The significance of China's experience is that it reached universal coverage during its process of industrialization and urbanization, setting an encouraging example for other countries involved in similar processes.…”

The impact of the Indonesian health card program: A matching estimator approach

“…Some countries provide health goods directly (e.g., the United Kingdom), while others combine public provision with subsidised health insurance for the poor (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore). The common justification for subsidisation is that health care services are particularly costly for the poor, while they are more likely to face adverse health shocks (Wagstaff, 2005;Whitehead et al, 2001;Xu et al, 2003;Case et al, 2002). It is also believed that there are positive externalities from a healthy population.…”

Burnout and depression among nurses in Japan and China: the moderating effects of job satisfaction and absence

“…a long history of effective healthcare management (Ikegami and Campbell 2004;Wagstaff 2007). More importantly there is a need for comparative studies using micro-level data from healthcare providers (Eggleston et al 2008).…”