Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Pitayarangsarit, Siriwan
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
In 2001, Thailand introduced the Universal Coverage \ud of \ud Health \ud Care \ud Policy \ud (UC) \ud very \ud rapidly after the new government came \ud to \ud power. \ud The \ud policy \ud aims \ud to \ud entitle \ud all \ud citizens \ud to health care and includes health system reforms \ud to \ud achieve \ud equity, \ud efficiency, \ud and \ud accountability. The overall question this thesis \ud asks \ud is how \ud did this \ud policy \ud come \ud about, \ud and how likely is it that the policy will \ud achieve \ud its \ud goals? \ud Literature suggests that understanding the \ud policy process \ud is \ud as \ud important \ud as \ud assessing \ud the \ud content of particular policies when \ud judging \ud policy outcomes. \ud By \ud using \ud an analytical \ud framework to explore four elements: context, actors, process, \ud and content, \ud this thesis \ud aims to generate general understanding of \ud the \ud UC \ud policy \ud process, \ud and \ud to \ud use \ud this \ud analysis to assess implementation. It \ud starts \ud by \ud addressing \ud how \ud and why \ud universal \ud coverage, which had long been discussed in \ud Thailand, \ud got \ud on \ud to the \ud policy \ud agenda \ud in \ud 2001, and then explores how the policy was \ud formulated \ud nationally. \ud It \ud goes \ud on \ud to look \ud at \ud implementation in one province, examining \ud the inter-relationships \ud between \ud provincial, \ud district and community facilities. Data were \ud gathered \ud from key informant interviews, \ud document and media analysis, and group \ud discussion \ud with villagers. \ud The analysis suggests that Thailand's democratization, \ud created \ud new \ud actors \ud in health \ud policymaking processes which had long \ud been \ud under \ud control \ud of bureaucrats \ud and \ud professionals. The 1997 Constitution encouraged a more pluralistic \ud political \ud system. \ud Universal access to health was advocated \ud by \ud a group of non-government \ud organizations \ud who pushed to get UC through legislation and announced \ud their \ud campaign \ud a \ud few \ud months \ud before the 2001 election. NGO interest was paralleled \ud by \ud a \ud political \ud party \ud campaign, \ud announced in 2000 by the Thai-Rak Thai Party, \ud and \ud implemented \ud as \ud UC \ud when \ud the \ud Party \ud came to power. UC was picked up \ud because it \ud was seen as \ud legitimate, feasible \ud under \ud the \ud existing infrastructure and government \ud budget, \ud and \ud also \ud congruent \ud with \ud the \ud reform \ud intention of the political party. Once it became the \ud government \ud in 2001, \ud an \ud important \ud factor in early policy formulation was \ud the \ud extent \ud to \ud which national \ud research \ud provided \ud evidence to support the policy. \ud The \ud research community \ud was \ud tightly-knit \ud and \ud concentrated in medical-related professions. \ud One \ud member \ud of \ud this \ud policy \ud community \ud played an important role as a policy entrepreneur. \ud This \ud policy \ud community \ud continued \ud to \ud support evidence for debates in policy-making \ud during both \ud policy \ud formulation \ud and \ud implementation. The implementation process \ud was \ud a top-down \ud process; \ud however, there \ud were some spaces for street level bureaucrats to \ud adapt \ud decisions to fit their \ud context. \ud Implementation started through the extension \ud of \ud insurance \ud coverage \ud in four \ud phases \ud under the execution of the Ministry of \ud Public Health. Private \ud providers \ud were \ud only \ud minimally involved in these formulation and \ud implementation \ud phases. \ud The \ud UC \ud policy \ud in \ud 2001-2 was characterised by clear policy goals, \ud limited \ud participation, \ud strong \ud institutional \ud capacity, and very rapid implementation \ud - \ud all \ud factors \ud which anticipated \ud success \ud of \ud the \ud policy. However, the complex technical features \ud of \ud the \ud policy \ud and \ud the \ud big \ud change \ud in \ud system reform were a brake on success. \ud One \ud of \ud the implementation \ud problems \ud was \ud the \ud mobilization of human resources, especially where \ud bureaucrats \ud were \ud resistant \ud to \ud change. \ud It seems that the implementation of the \ud UC \ud policy \ud in \ud Thailand \ud reflected \ud both \ud managerial \ud as well as political problems. Given the findings \ud of \ud this \ud study, \ud policy \ud monitoring \ud should \ud pay attention to political as well as technical assessment.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok