[Subgroup-health] 2nd discussion - Workshop during CGAP Conference on Microinsurance
Ellis Wohlner
elliswohlner at yahoo.com
Mon May 19 10:39:04 CEST 2008
Dear Tara,
Very good!
One immediate question that comes to my mind is how much of the overall cost of the program is met by the state? Or, turned around, what percentage of the total cost is met by the households' fees of Rs. 30?
Kind regards,
Ellis
Tara Sinha <taragsinha at yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear All:
Really sorry - forgot the attachment! Here it is.
Tara Sinha
Ahmedabad
Ph: 91 79 6632 5402
--- On Fri, 16/5/08, Valérie Schmitt-Diabate <schmitt-diabate at ilo.org> wrote:
From: Valérie Schmitt-Diabate <schmitt-diabate at ilo.org>
Subject: [Subgroup-health] 2nd discussion - Workshop during CGAP Conference on Microinsurance
To: subgroup-health at microfinance.lu
Cc: "Craig Churchill" <churchill at ilo.org>, dreinhard at munichre-foundation.org
Date: Friday, 16 May, 2008, 9:45 PM
dear all
it seems we have to urge concerning the proposals of speakers and presentations if we want to organize a session on behalf of the Health microinsurance subgroup (see mail below from Dirk Reinhard)
so could you please react by monday on my previous e mail (below)?
the form to be filled in by each speaker is also attached
many thanks, Valerie
>>> Reinhard Dirk - Munich-MR <dreinhard at munichre-foundation.org> 05/16/08 4:55 pm >>>
Dear Valerie,
Since the deadline for the call for proposals has already expiered, we have already forwarded the submissions to the SC.
However I have already indicated that there mights be a few late runners. If I receive the proposal by monday it should be ok. In any case since we already initiated translations, it has to be in English.
I will forward you the form again.
Best regards
Dirk Reinhard
>>> "Valérie Schmitt-Diabate" <schmitt-diabate at ilo.org> 05/15/08 12:13 pm >>>
Dear All
Today is the last day to submit our proposal of session for the microinsurance conference. This is why I am copying this e mail to the organizers of the Conference.
Based on past discussions within the subgroup, I suggest following title :
"Design and provision of the best possible benefit package: technical and policy perspectives"
Since the topic is at the border of technical and policy aspects, our session could fit under:
Topic 4: Innovative products and distribution channels
Topic 3: Regulation, supervision and policy
It is now time to find good examples of schemes or initiatives and the speakers that will present them.
I guess some of you have already some ideas !!
I suggest that the speakers present concrete experiences of health microinsurance schemes and stress in their presentations the different aspects that we mentionned in our previous discussions (the question of the priority needs to be covered, the questions of availability and affordability of the benefit package) and the solutions that were found internally (participative design and adjustment of the package, increase of efficiency through the use of MIS system, etc.) or externally (through negotiations with health care providers or pharmaceutical industry, connexion to national health programmes or regional initiatives, links with networks of cooperatives, links with the corporate sector on behalf of the CSR, links to international funds, etc.)
This session will give us a better idea of the area of work of our subgroup for the following year and we may use the conclusions to formulate our 2009 Key question that will then be developped through research, taken into consideration in existing field projects and discussed in conferences.
Thanks in advance for your inputs !!
Valerie
>>> Iddo Dror <iddo at mia.org.in> 05/15/08 9:58 am >>>
Dear All,
With regards to Harrie Oostingh's comment on the policy debate, I would like to add the following thought:
The link to policy is certainly an interesting issue to look at, and for me this remain very much linked to the previous discussions on designing relevant packages, with a special focus on giving members the ability to design their own packages, to achieve coverage that makes sense to them, and which can be modeled around what they can get elsewhere (for the government etc.) for better value than by buying insurance from the private sector or by mutually pooling their resources.
Let me give an example: The government of India recently launched and started rolling out the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY) scheme, which is targeted at the poor, and offers BPL families coverage of up to Rs 30’000 (approximately $ 750) and includes coverage for pre-existing conditions, and offers cashless facility (through the use of smartcards) at both public and private facilities. Leaving aside the questions of whether targeting BPL is the way to go, and the logistical hurdles that identifying BPL families represents, this product, which will be offered for a premium of Rs. 30 per household (up to five lives) per year – a cost of less than 2 cents per person per month. While the scheme excludes maternity, OPD etc. (and thus its impact on OOPS is an open issue), it does represent better value for money than most commercial products on the Indian market today, while covering a very similar benefit package.
This is where innovative, client-led benefit design can link very well to the policy debate, and the CHAT methodology (version 2.0 launched in 2008, a video of version 1.0 available online at www.youtube.com/microinsurance) can make a difference. If mutuals can find ways to let their members design packages that will complement what they can get from the state for free (or almost), this is more likely to contribute to social protection than if we see a tougher competition between the state and the private sector on delivering similar packages.
Best,
Iddo
P.S
By the way, Harrie Oostingh quotes the 2005 ILO inventory - I was under the impression that a revised ILO inventory on health micro insurance units was prepared by the ILO Delhi office in 2007, but have not seen the publication. If someone on this group has a copy and can share it, it may help us analyze how things have progressed since 2005.
Harrie Oostingh wrote:
Dear All,
It is good to see that our workgroup is gaining dynamism and that more members get involved in the debate.
The development of health insurance with a significant coverage has a technical and a policy dimension.
On a technical level there is a big challenge on designing a benefit package according to the priority needs of the poor, and institutional and contracting arrangements that can deliver on a cost-efficient basis. I think this issue was stressed in the interventions of Jonh Pott, Mukti Bosco and David Dror.
Even improving methods for design and delivery of micro health insurance there will probably be a significant gap between what people can afford and the cost of a significative insurance coverage. David Dror mentioned in Mumbai that health microinsurance schemes he invested in India only cover an average of 11% of households expenditure on health. This means that the role of microinsurance in social protection in health depends on additional sources of funding and availability of health care services (issues stressed by Valerie).
The above is also illustrated by the history of mutuals in Europe, as may'be the Benenden Healthcare Society in the UK or health mutuals in The Netherlands. These schemes were able to develop gradually because of strong growth of income of people (and their capacity to pay premiums) and strong growth of tax income of governments (to be able to support membership of certain low income groups). Still these mutuals cover only part of total health care needs of the population.
Therefore I think that the policy debate on the role of microinsurance and its contribution to social health protection is crucial. The evaluation of health insurance schemes only on the the impact for the people able to join my'be misleading as often these schemes are detrimental for health systems objetives as a whole. ILO revised in 2005 14 health micro insurance schemes in India, of which 12 schemes excluded childbirth and pregnancy related illnesses, most excluded people living with HIV. This way insurance schemes might be affordable, but place an important part of the financial burden of diseases on people with high health risks or on other institutions.
Again, for me the discussion on designing benefit packages should not be disconnected with the policy debate, taking also into account the specifities of health microinsurance we agreed upon.
Harrie Oostingh
Microinsurance
Research & Development
Oxfam Novib
Mauritskade 9
Postbus 30919
2500 GX DEN HAAG
harrie.oostingh at oxfamnovib.nl
(+31) (0)70 3421720
---------------------------------
From: subgroup-health-bounces at microfinance.lu [mailto:subgroup-health-bounces at microfinance.lu] On Behalf Of bill mcpate
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:31 PM
To: subgroup-health at microfinance.lu
Subject: [Subgroup-health] new member comment
Dear All,
I am new to the group but have a strong belief that the experience of the health mutual I managed in the UK could be of value to the group’s efforts to find solutions to delivering healthcare in developing countries. This may not be the best time to introduce detail to the discussions of the subgroup but if you will allow me to “get it off my chest” it will also serve as an introduction to my background.
The Benenden Healthcare Society is a mutual healthcare organisation providing affordable health services to almost 1 million members in the UK who can be broadly identified as public servants and their families.
The Society was first formed in 1905 to provide sanatorium care for tuberculosis or TB. The type and method of care was not specified and discretion was applied by the elected members to determine the most appropriate service for members with TB. As vaccines and treatments were developed to deal with TB, the services changed to encompass other medical conditions and a wider benefit range. Since the formation of the National Health Service in 1948, these services have supplemented the care available through the state system. The benefits are discretionary and supported by an ethos of trust rather than contractual and supported by insurance principles.
Amongst the issues you have discussed to date is the dilemma between concentrating on principles and detail. Perhaps we need to concentrate on both.
The principles/values of the mutual health model will be familiar to you all- Solidarity, Autonomous management, Not for Profit orientation, Inclusivity and non-selection.
However, there are a variety of ways that a health system can be designed to utilise these principles. The design features in the Benenden model appear in other systems but the way that they combine seem to offer a unique solution:
The community of members is based upon groups of workers.
The affinity between member of staff provides the necessary solidarity to support universal discretionary benefits and collective action. Our group, in 1905, comprised postal workers. As their confidence grew in managing the fund, this was widened to other groups of workers and family members. Cotton workers might be a typical start up community today, developing to include family members later.
The Employer recovers contributions on the Employee’s behalf.
Providing the workers receive payment through some form of payroll system, deductions from pay is the mechanism used for collecting contributions to the mutual fund. This overcomes the problem experienced by some other forms of micro insurance of high costs for premium collection. Employers will be motivated to cooperate in this way by the attraction of a healthier workforce. (It is accepted that the dependence upon a payment system for cost control will limit the scope of application for this model).
The Community decide themselves what services they wish to provide.
The postal community in the UK in 1905 chose cover for TB care because purchasing care in a sanatorium was only affordable by the rich so their prospects of surviving TB were poor. There are numerous candidate conditions in the developing world, for example TB, malaria or AIDS. The range of services for those conditions would also be a matter of member choice. It may be education, diagnostic services or clinic facilities that they deem most important. Their health service choices will be based not only on need but also affordability. Affordability and therefore inclusivity can be prioritised in this model because the benefits are discretionary.
Suitability for Developing Countries
There are a number of reasons why I remain convinced of the suitability of this model for developing countries:
a) In contrast to dependence upon the external efforts of others, such as the state or donor countries, the members take responsibility for organising this form of health system themselves. As widely recognised, when people are engaged in looking after their own health the outcomes are improved.
b) Compared to the enormity of the health challenge facing many countries, this model can be introduced with a narrow benefit focus, such as a single disease. It has the natural potential to grow and take on a wider range of health services over time.
c) The trust and accountability inherent in the model will enable funds to be safely targeted on the changing needs of members. Governments can also trust this model to fit in with the development of state health services.
You have more experience than me in the problems of the developing world so please let me know why you think that this model may not be appropriate. Returning to Valerie’s e-mail of 8th May could this be one solution to the search for a model that “responds to the priority protection needs of the insured” that is also “inclusive”,” available” and “affordable”?
Bill McPate
The Benenden Healthcare Society
---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
subgroup-health mailing list
subgroup-health at microfinance.lu
http://lists.microfinance.lu/mailman/listinfo/subgroup-health
--
Iddo Dror
Director of Operations
Micro Insurance Academy
D-127, Panchsheel Enclave
New Delhi 110017
India
Tel: +91 11 4174 9101
Fax: +91 11 4174 9102
www.microinsuranceacademy.org
--------------------------------------------
This electronic message may contain confidential, proprietary or
privileged information.
It is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify
the sender and delete the message; do not disclose, distribute, or copy
the information.
Electronic messages are not secure or error-free, and may contain
viruses; the ILO is not liable in any such event.
--------------------------------------------
Ce message électronique peut contenir des informations confidentielles,
ou spécialement protégées, à la
seule intention du destinataire. Dans le cas où vous ne seriez pas
destinataire de ce message, merci d'avertir
l'expéditeur et de supprimer le message sans révéler, copier ou
distribuer les informations qu'il contient.
Les messages électroniques ne sont pas sécurisés ou à l'abri d'une
erreur et peuvent contenir des virus;
le BIT ne peut être tenu responsable de tels évènements.
--------------------------------------------
Este mensaje electrónico puede contener información confidencial o
especialmente protegida.
Está dirigido para el uso exclusivo del destinatario indicado. Si Usted
no es el destinatario previsto,
notifique por favor al remitente y suprima el mensaje; no divulgue, no
distribuya, ni copie la información.
Los mensajes electrónicos no son seguros o libres de error, y pueden
contener virus; la OIT no se responsabiliza en
cualquiera de estos casos.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
This electronic message may contain confidential, proprietary or
privileged information.
It is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify
the sender and delete the message; do not disclose, distribute, or copy
the information.
Electronic messages are not secure or error-free, and may contain
viruses; the ILO is not liable in any such event.
--------------------------------------------
Ce message électronique peut contenir des informations confidentielles,
ou spécialement protégées, à la
seule intention du destinataire. Dans le cas où vous ne seriez pas
destinataire de ce message, merci d'avertir
l'expéditeur et de supprimer le message sans révéler, copier ou
distribuer les informations qu'il contient.
Les messages électroniques ne sont pas sécurisés ou à l'abri d'une
erreur et peuvent contenir des virus;
le BIT ne peut être tenu responsable de tels évènements.
--------------------------------------------
Este mensaje electrónico puede contener información confidencial o
especialmente protegida.
Está dirigido para el uso exclusivo del destinatario indicado. Si Usted
no es el destinatario previsto,
notifique por favor al remitente y suprima el mensaje; no divulgue, no
distribuya, ni copie la información.
Los mensajes electrónicos no son seguros o libres de error, y pueden
contener virus; la OIT no se responsabiliza en
cualquiera de estos casos.
--------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
subgroup-health mailing list
subgroup-health at microfinance.lu
http://lists.microfinance.lu/mailman/listinfo/subgroup-health
---------------------------------
Chocoholics' paradise! Enter here._______________________________________________
subgroup-health mailing list
subgroup-health at microfinance.lu
http://lists.microfinance.lu/mailman/listinfo/subgroup-health
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.microfinance.lu/pipermail/subgroup-health/attachments/20080519/afd267a1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the subgroup-health
mailing list