2006年我国卫生总费用测算结果与基本卫生服务筹资方案

2006年全国卫生总费用为9843．34亿元，增速略慢于宏观经济增长。在卫生筹资构成中，政府卫生投入比例稳中有升，社会卫生支出比例提高较快，居民个人现金卫生支出所占比例已降至50．00％以下。同时，简要描述了2006年我国卫生总费用机构流向构成、城乡卫生费用和卫生总费用的国际比较。最后，基于我国基本卫生服务筹资应以税收筹资模式为主的策略，提出构建基本卫生服务筹资制度的具体行动方案。     

2004年中国卫生总费用测算结果与卫生筹资分析

概要描述2004年我国卫生总费用测算结果。2004年卫生总费用增速缓慢,政府卫生投入比例稳中有升,社会卫生支出比重持续回升,居民个人现金卫生支出所占比重保持近2年的下降趋势。还就卫生筹资面临的主要问题和挑战,从公平性角度对我国及部分地区卫生资金筹集和卫生服务利用进行分析评价,并讨论与借鉴世界卫生组织提出的卫生筹资政策目标和卫生筹资策略。     

山东省卫生总费用核算与预测

目的：对山东省卫生总费用进行核算与预测,为建立卫生筹资策略和机制提供依据。方法：资料主要来源于1998—2009年山东省卫生财务、卫生统计和社会经济统计资料。运用筹资来源法对山东省卫生筹资进行系统测算,并开展国内外比较研究;运用指数平滑法,预测山东省卫生总费用未来发展趋势。结果：（1）1998—2009年,山东省卫生总费用从195.71亿元增加到1163.20亿元,人均卫生总费用从221.44元增加到1228.26元,卫生总费用占GDP的比例从2.79%增加到3.43%;（2）1998—2009年,按照国内口径,政府卫生支出和社会卫生支出占卫生总费用的比重分别从15.67%和28.93%增加到21.84%和36.85%,个人卫生支出比重从55.40%降低到41.31%;按照国际口径,广义政府卫生支出占卫生总费用的比重从36.95%增加到45.62%,私人卫生支出比重从63.05%降低到54.38%;（3）2015年和2020年,预测卫生总费用占GDP的比重分别达到4.01%和4.25%,个人卫生支出占卫生总费用比重分别降低至37.02%和35.47%。结论：（1）山东省卫生筹资水平较低;（2）山东省卫生筹资构成向着好的方向变化,但卫生筹资构成仍不合理,公共筹资不足、个人筹资较高。建议：努力筹集足够的卫生资金,提高卫生总费用占GDP的比重;加大政府卫生投入,降低个人筹资比例。     

2001—2012年四川省卫生总费用筹资来源分析

目的:测算并分析四川省2001年到2012年卫生总费用,为卫生筹资政策提供参考依据。方法:运用筹资来源法进行测算。结果:2012年四川省卫生总费用为1 405.91亿元,人均卫生总费用为1 740.81元,卫生总费用占GDP的比重为5.89%;政府卫生支出,社会卫生支出和个人卫生支出的比例分别为33.71%,33.24%和33.05%。2001年到2012年,四川省卫生总费用平均增长速度为19.44%;2012年后政府卫生支出的增长慢于本地区财政支出增长。结论:四川省卫生筹资增速放缓,人均卫生总费用偏低,卫生筹资结构尚需优化,政府卫生投入需保持持续增长,可通过不断完善基本医疗保障制度,增加社会筹资来源。     

1998—2010 年山东省卫生总费用筹资状况分析

目的 分析山东省1998-2010年卫生总费用主要构成及其变化趋势,提出改善卫生筹资的建议.方法:运用筹资来源法对山东省1998-2010年的卫生总费用进行了测算,并对测算结果进行分析.结果:山东省卫生总费用和人均卫生总费用呈现逐年增长趋势,个人卫生支出从55.40％～38.72％,结构不太合理.结论:建议适当提高卫生总费用占GDP的比例,加大政府卫生投入力度,降低居民个人卫生支出,建立合理的卫生筹资机制.     

1995年至2011年新疆卫生总费用筹资水平和结构及变化趋势分析

目的 对1995年至2011年新疆卫生总费用的主要构成和变化趋势进行分析,提出改善卫生筹资的政策建议.方法 采用筹资来源法对新疆卫生总费用进行测算,并对测算结果进行分析.结果 1995年至2011年,新疆卫生总费用年平均增长速度为14.75％.新疆卫生总费用和人均卫生费用呈持续增长趋势,筹资水平高于地区经济发展水平,但卫生消费弹性系数不稳定;居民个人卫生负担逐步降低,卫生费用筹资结构相对较合理;城乡居民医疗保健消费水平增长快于人均收入增长,占生活肖费支出的比例波动升高.结论 建议继续推进医药卫生体制改革,充分发挥卫生对口援疆工作的战略作用,促进基本公共卫生服务均等化;发展经济和提高城乡居民收入,加强社会医疗保障制度;加大宏观调控,遏制卫生费用快速上涨的势头.     

1998年中国卫生总费用测算结果与分析

为了便于政府各部门及政策研究人员获得有关数据信息,进行卫生政策分析,本文发布１９９８年中国卫生总费用测算结果,并从卫生总费用筹资规模、内部结构、城乡居民卫生保健支出以及卫生保健服务利用水平等方面进行概述性分析。同时,就我国卫生总费用筹资结构不合理,城乡居民卫生保健水平存在差异等问题进行讨论,并提出相关建议,     

山东省2010年卫生总费用筹资水平与结构分析

目的分析山东省卫生费用的筹资来源,讨论存在的问题并提出相应对策。方法对山东省2010年的卫生总费用进行了测算,即按照卫生资金的筹资渠道与筹资形式收集卫生总费用数据,采用筹资来源法测算全社会卫生筹资总额,并与上年及全国水平进行比较。文中数据均以当年价格为基准,并未排除价格因素的影响,对于筹资结构分析中的相关指标采用的是统计学上的构成比。结果 2010年山东省卫生总费用较上年总体呈现增长趋势,筹资总额达1 345.30亿元,政府、社会、居民个人现金卫生支出分别占24.34%、36.94%、38.72%。2010年山东省卫生总费用占国内生产总值(grossdomestic prodact,GDP)比重和人均卫生总费用均低于全国水平。结论应适当提高卫生总费用占GDP的比例,加大政府和社会的卫生投入力度,降低居民个人现金卫生支出,建立合理的卫生筹资机制。     

中国和国际卫生总费用核算指标口径的比较研究

卫生总费用已成为国内外开展卫生政策分析和评价的重要工具.目前,我国公布的是筹资来源法的核算结果(政府卫生支出、社会卫生支出和居民个人现金卫生支出),国际上公布的是筹资机构法的核算结果(广义政府卫生支出和私人部门卫生支出).为避免国内外开展政策分析时因引用数据带来的偏差,需要对我国和国际卫生总费用分类方法和指标口径进行比较研究.文章描述了国际卫生总费用(筹资机构法)核算指标分类口径,梳理了我国卫生总费用(筹资来源法)核算指标分类口径,并对国内外卫生总费用核算指标进行了对比衔接,最后利用主要指标对卫生政策进行了简要分析评价.     

建立卫生筹资公平性新视角

我国曾被国际组织列为个人现金卫生支出占卫生总费用比重较高的国家之一.不但影响基本医疗保障制度全面覆盖,也容易导致因病致贫风险.调整卫生筹资结构是各级政府和卫生行政管理部门主要卫生工作任务.政府在服务提供、规制、筹资方面发挥强有力的作用,一定会实现卫生筹资的公平性.其实现目标是将个人卫生支出控制在卫生总费用30%以下.     

国内外政府卫生支出口径的异同及结果分析

主要介绍有关国内和国际上政府卫生支出的口径与含义。指出我国政府卫生支出均为财政拨款,而国际上政府卫生支出以OECD(经济合作组织)筹资机构口径为标准,指广义政府实体筹集的卫生费用。因此,进行国际比较时应对我国政府卫生支出的口径进行调整。最后对国内外政府卫生支出进行了简要的对比分析。     

2003年中国卫生总费用测算结果与分析

概要描述2003年中国卫生总费用测算结果。2003年卫生总费用筹资结构出现新的转机．政府卫生投入比例出现回升，社会卫生支出走出低谷，居民个人现金卫生支出所占比重连续2年出现下降趋势．遏制了居民个人卫生费用持续增长的势头；同时，借鉴国际经验，对如何提高政府卫生资金使用效率提出粗浅意见。     

National Health Accounts development: lessons from Thailand

National Health Accounts (NHA) are an important tool to demonstrate how a country's health resources are spent, on what services, and who pays for them. NHA are used by policy-makers for monitoring health expenditure patterns; policy instruments to re-orientate the pattern can then be further introduced. The National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) of Thailand produces aggregate health expenditure data but its estimation methods have several limitations. This has led to the research and development of an NHA prototype in 1994, through an agreed definition of health expenditure and methodology, in consultation with peer and other stakeholders. This is an initiative by local researchers without external support, with an emphasis on putting the system into place. It involves two steps: firstly, the flow of funds from ultimate sources of finance to financing agencies; and secondly, the use of funds by financing agencies. Five ultimate sources and 12 financing agencies (seven public and five private) were identified. Use of consumption expenditures was listed under four main categories and 32 sub-categories. Using 1994 figures, we estimated a total health expenditure of 128,305.11 million Baht; 84.07% consumption and 15.93% capital formation. Of total consumption expenditure, 36.14% was spent on purchasing care from public providers, with 32.35% on private providers, 5.93% on administration and 9.65% on all other public health programmes. Public sources of finance were responsible for 48.79% and private 51.21% of the total 1994 health expenditure. Total health expenditure accounted for 3.56% of GDP (consumption expenditure at 3.00% of GDP and capital formation at 0.57% of GDP). The NESDB consumption expenditure estimate in 1994 was 180,516 million Baht or 5.01% of GDP, of which private sources were dominant (82.17%) and public sources played a minor role (17.83%). The discrepancy of consumption expenditure between the two estimates is 2.01% of GDP. There is also a large difference in the public and private proportion of consumption expenses, at 46:54 in NHA and 18:82 in NESDB. Future NHA sustainable development is proposed. Firstly, we need more accurate aggregate and disaggregated data, especially from households, who take the lion's share of total expenditure, based on amended questionnaires in the National Statistical Office Household Socio-Economic Survey. Secondly, partnership building with NESDB and other financing agencies is needed in the further development of the financial information system to suit the biennial NHA report. Thirdly, expenditures need breaking down into ambulatory and inpatient care for monitoring and the proper introduction of policy instruments. We also suggest that in a pluralistic health care system, the breakdown of spending on public and private providers is important. Finally, a sustainable NHA development and utilization of NHA for planning and policy development is the prime objective. International comparisons through collaborative efforts in standardizing definition and methodology will be a useful by-product when developing countries are able to sustain their NHA reports.     

安徽省卫生账户核算研究报告

中国卫生总费用核算小组借鉴国家级卫生总费用核算方法,参照经合组织提出的国际卫生账户核算分类标准,在安徽省进行试点研究和现场操作,建立省级卫生总费用核算体系。其目的是介绍与传播试点成果和经验,加强区域性卫生账户核算能力,适应各地区卫生改革与卫生发展的需要。     

甘肃省卫生总费用筹资水平及结构分析

目的：运用筹资来源法对2003—2012年甘肃省卫生总费用进行测算,初步了解甘肃省卫生总费用筹资水平及结构,从宏观上分析政府、社会和个人筹资负担,为甘肃省制定和调整卫生政策提供科学的参考依据。方法根据研究目的,运用筹资来源法,查阅相关统计年鉴及统计公报,得到相关指标,建立相应的数据库,应用 Ex-cel、SPSS 19.0等软件对数据进行统计和分析。结果2003—2012年甘肃省卫生总费和人均卫生总费用呈逐年增加趋势,平均增长速度分别为21.02%和21.20%。2003—2012年政府卫生支出占卫生总费用比重由22.40%上升至37.97%;社会卫生支出所占比重有较小波动,总体上有所增加,2012年达到25.62%;个人卫生支出所占比重由2003年的53.85%降至2012年的36.41%。结论甘肃省卫生筹资水平不断提高,但人均卫生总费用偏低;卫生筹资结构有待完善,应建立长效的政府卫生投入机制;同时甘肃省应深化卫生总费用核算等工作。     

我国基层卫生机构公共筹资现状研究

目的:分析基层卫生机构公共筹资现状及业务经营能力,提出政策建议。方法:利用第四次国家卫生服务调查数据,进行定量研究。结果:仅有20%的卫生费用发生在基层卫生机构;接近10%的乡镇卫生院和40%的社区卫生服务中心没有任何财政资金支持,超过半数的村卫生室和社区卫生服务站没有获得任何补助;79%的乡镇卫生院、70%的社区卫生服务中心、37%的村卫生室和55%的社区卫生服务站业务收不抵支。结论:公共筹资对基层卫生机构覆盖的广度和支付力度亟待提高,政府卫生投入应按居民需求和卫生服务可及程度进行配置。     

A review of health resource tracking in developing countries

Timely, reliable and complete information on financial resources in the health sector is critical for sound policy making and planning, particularly in developing countries where resources are both scarce and unpredictable. Health resource tracking has a long history and has seen renewed interest more recently as pressure has mounted to improve accountability for the attainment of the health Millennium Development Goals. We review the methods used to track health resources and recent experiences of their application, with a view to identifying the major challenges that must be overcome if data availability and reliability are to improve. At the country level, there have been important advances in the refinement of the National Health Accounts (NHA) methodology, which is now regarded as the international standard. Significant efforts have also been put into the development of methods to track disease-specific expenditures. However, NHA as a framework can do little to address the underlying problem of weak government public expenditure management and information systems that provide much of the raw data. The experience of institutionalizing NHA suggests progress has been uneven and there is a potential for stand-alone disease accounts to make the situation worse by undermining capacity and confusing technicians. Global level tracking of donor assistance to health relies to a large extent on the OECD's Creditor Reporting System. Despite improvements in its coverage and reliability, the demand for estimates of aid to control of specific diseases is resulting in multiple, uncoordinated data requests to donor agencies, placing additional workload on the providers of information. The emergence of budget support aid modalities poses a methodological challenge to health resource tracking, as such support is difficult to attribute to any particular sector or health programme. Attention should focus on improving underlying financial and information systems at the country level, which will facilitate more reliable and timely reporting of NHA estimates. Effective implementation of a framework to make donors more accountable to recipient countries and the international community will improve the availability of financial data on their activities.     

Triangulating health expenditure estimates from different data sources in developing countries

This article deals with the accuracy of statistical records used for political decision making and international comparative analysis. In developing countries, even major macroeconomic indicators can include data inadequacies and methodological differences in data generation between statistical agencies. Existing data show that total health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is about 50% lower in Pakistan than in other low-income countries (LIC). To determine whether these results reflect the actual situation in Pakistan or whether they are due to statistical error, Pakistan produced National Health Accounts (NHA) for the first time in 2009 to assess health spending in 2005-6. Improved NHA estimates are also being made for 2007-8, which will be based on the following: public expenditure data published with time lags; survey results for 2007-8; and multivariate analyses of data from 2010 and 2011 surveys on health-specific out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure, healthcare providers, non-profit institutions and census data on autonomous bodies and large hospitals. Since these data are not yet available, a best estimate of health expenditure has to be made to support policy decision making and to provide a point of comparison for future NHA results. Health expenditure data are available from different data sources and estimates have been made by applying different methods, leading to a range of health spending estimates. As a result of this diversity of estimates and data, each with its own inaccuracies or gaps, there was a clear need to triangulate the available information and to identify a best possible estimate. This article compares estimates of household health expenditure from different sources, such as the Household Integrated Economic Survey, the Family Budget Survey and National Accounts (NA). The analysis shows that health expenditure figures for Pakistan have been underestimated by both WHO and the NHA. An adjusted estimate shows OOP spending to be twice as high as previously thought. Previous per capita total health expenditure estimates ranged from $US16 to $US19. The revised estimate showed per capita total health expenditure to be $US33, based on NA data. This puts Pakistan in a different position in international comparisons, with health expenditure exceeding the level of India ($US32.5) and the average of all LIC ($US24.5). Methodological differences in estimating expenditure and the multiple and conflicting estimates might cause stakeholders to make potentially adverse or even erroneous policy decisions on the allocation of resources. Because policy makers make decisions based on the estimates provided, the provision of a best estimate, made following a review of the advantages and limitations of existing sources and methods, is key.