Table 1.
Countries selected as case studies and the characteristics as of 2014
| Country | Development stage of UHCa % population covered in the entire countrya | Funding arrangement (year of inception)b | Geographical region (WHO region) | Country income level | Provider mixb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 90% | NRCMS (2003): Premiums and federal and local government subsidies URBMI (2007): Premiums and government subsidies |
WPR | UMIC | NRCMS: Largely private contractors URBMI: Largely public |
| Indonesia | 40–63% | JAMKESMAS (2004): Government revenues | SEAR | LMIC | Jamkesmas: Nearly exclusively public |
| Ghana | 39% | NHIS (2004): Social Health Insurance | AFR | LMIC | NHIS: Mixed public/private providers |
| Mexico | 80–100% | SP (2003): Premiums and taxes | AMR | UMIC | SP: Nearly exclusively public |
aThe percentage of the population covered varies by data source and method of estimating coverage; hence, we report for some countries a range. Percentage coverage is based on most recent reporting or 2014, whichever is later
bThis information refers to the reform program that specifically targets the poor population: NRCMS New Rural Coorperative Medical Scheme, URBMI Urban Residence Basic Medical Insurance, MoHME Ministry of Health and Medical Education, NHIS National Health Insurance Scheme, RHI Rural Health Insurance, SP Seguro Popular
Region: WPR Western Pacific Region, SEAR South-east Asian Region, AFR African Region, AMR Region of the Americas, EMR Eastern Mediterranean Region