Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paphassarang, C
Right arrow Articles by Blas, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paphassarang, C
Right arrow Articles by Blas, E
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Policy and Planning; 17(90001): 72-84
© Oxford University Press 2002

Equity, privatization and cost recovery in urban health care: the case of Lao PDR

C Paphassarang1, K Philavong1, B Boupha1 and E Blas2

1 National Institute of Public Health, Vientiane, Lao PDR and
2 Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Along with the shift from a planned to market-oriented economy, as in many other developing countries, Lao PDR has promoted health care partnerships with the private sector, and cost recovery in public hospitals, to increase resources in the public sector, while at the same time attempting to ensure appropriate access to health care for those without means to pay. In a multi-case design, this study compares two neighbourhoods of different socioeconomic status comprising 10 households, representing urban districts in three provinces. In-depth interviews were conducted over a 1-year period with three visits to each household. Members of the households were interviewed on their perceptions and utilization of health care services. Focus group discussions of public providers and individual interviews of private providers, leaders of the villages and hospital administrators provided complementary perspectives. The study found that both socioeconomic groups utilized private health services as their first choice, including private clinics and treatment abroad for those with high socioeconomic status, while the low socioeconomic group preferred private pharmacies. The unwelcoming attitudes of health staff and procedural barriers have led both groups to meet their health care needs in the private sector. Here the health care they receive is strictly limited to what they can pay for. For the poor, in most cases, this means drugs alone, i.e. no examination, no diagnosis and only limited advice. Limited financial resources often means receiving inappropriate and insufficient medication. Equity in health care remains theoretical rather than practical and the social goals of the reform have not been achieved.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
N. Nyazema, N. Viberg, S. Khoza, S. Vyas, L. Kumaranayake, G. Tomson, and C. S. Lundborg
Low sale of antibiotics without prescription: a cross-sectional study in Zimbabwean private pharmacies
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., April 1, 2007; 59(4): 718 - 726.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.