Comparison of medicines management strategies in insurance schemes in middle-income countries: four case studies

Table 1 Countries selected as case studies and the characteristics as of 2014

Country	Development stage of UHC^a % population covered in the entire country^a	Funding arrangement (year of inception)^b	Geographical region (WHO region)	Country income level	Provider mix^b
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

ISSN: 2052-3211