Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39901272›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

Political economy analysis of health financing reforms in times of crisis: findings from three case studies in south-east Asia.

Sophie Witter, Maria Paola Bertone, Sushil Baral, Ghanshyam Gautam, Saugat K C Pratap, Aungsumalee Pholpark, Nurmala Selly Saputri, Arif Budi Darmawan, Nina Toyamah, Rizki Fillaili and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sophie WitterInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, Edinburgh, EH216UU, UK. switter@qmu.ac.uk.
Maria Paola BertoneInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, Edinburgh, EH216UU, UK.
Sushil BaralReBUILD for Resilience Research Consortium, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Ghanshyam GautamReBUILD for Resilience Research Consortium, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Saugat K C PratapReBUILD for Resilience Research Consortium, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Aungsumalee PholparkFaculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Nurmala Selly SaputriSMERU Research Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Arif Budi DarmawanSMERU Research Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Nina ToyamahSMERU Research Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Rizki FillailiSMERU Research Institute, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Valeria de Oliveira CruzWorld Health Organisation, Southeast Asia office, Delhi, India.
Susan SparkesWorld Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decades, universal health coverage (UHC) has been promoted in south-east Asia (SEA), where many countries still need to ensure adequate financial protection to their populations. However, successful health financing reforms involve complex interactions among a range of stakeholders, as well as with context factors, including shocks and crises of different nature. In this article, we examine recent health financing reforms in Nepal, Thailand and Indonesia, using a political economy lens. The objective is to understand whether and how crises can be utilised to progress UHC and to analyse the strategies used by reformers to benefit from potential windows of opportunity.

methodsThe study adopted a retrospective, comparative case study design, using a shared framework and tools. The case studies mapped the contexts, including economic, political, social trends and any shocks which had recently occurred. A focal health financing reform was chosen in each setting to examine, probing the role of crisis in relation to it, through the key elements of the reform process, content and actors. Data sources were largely qualitative and included literature and document review (144 documents included across the three cases) and key informant interviews (26 in total).

resultsThe findings, which bring out similarities and differences in the roles played by change teams across the settings, highlight the importance of working closely with political leaders and using a wide range of strategies to build coalitions and engage or block opponents. Changing decision rules to block veto points was significant in one case, and all three cases used participation and dialogue strategically to further reforms. More broadly, the links with context emerged as important, with prior conflicts and economic crises creating a sense of urgency about addressing health inequities, while in all countries appeal was made to underlying values to enhance the legitimacy of the reforms.

conclusionThe lessons from these case studies include that technical teams can and should engage in Political Economy Analysis (PEA) thinking and strategizing, including being aware of and adaptable to the changing PEA landscape and prepared to take advantage of windows of opportunity, including, but not limited to, those emerging from crisis. There is a need for more empirical studies in this area and sharing of lessons to support future reforms to increase health coverage and financial protection, including in the face of likely shocks.

Indexed as

Healthcare FinancingHealth Care ReformPoliticsUniversal Health InsuranceAsia, SoutheasternHumansIndonesiaRetrospective StudiesThailandHealth financingIndonesiaNepalPolitical economy analysisReformsShocks or crisesThailand

Identifiers

PMID39901272
PMCPMC11792183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.