An Assessment of the National Health Security Scheme: Governance and Management Perspectives

Authors

  • Nuttanan Wichitaksorn Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Tippatrai Saelawong Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Chanisara Dumkum Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Jiraporn Plangpraphan Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Nakarin Amarase Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Thanarat Chotikasathian Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Manatchaya Chuyingsakultip Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Amanee Hamu Thailand Development Research Institute
  • Tongchai Naphim Thailand Development Research Institute

Keywords:

universal coverage scheme, National Health Security Office, governance assessment

Abstract

Thailand has maintained a commitment to the universal coverage (UC) scheme for over 20 years, with the National Health Security Office (NHSO) playing a central role in driving its implementation and service delivery. Although various organizations have monitored and evaluated Thailand’s UC, research has largely focused on health outcomes and access to care, whereas assessments of the NHSO’s governance remain relatively unexplored. This study thus aimed to evaluate the NHSO’s governance, including its management of the National Health Security Fund. This evaluation applied the principal–agent theory to analyze power dynamics and accountability within the UC system. The assessment was guided by the “3E” framework: execution (practical implementation), evidence (evidence-based decision-making), and efficiency (operational performance). Key data sources included official documents, meeting records, research studies, and NHSO databases, complemented by in-depth interviews with experts and representatives from stakeholder organizations in the UC system. The findings offer insight into policy performance along with concrete recommendations for improving the governance and management of Thailand’s UC system. The evaluation of NHSO’s governance revealed that the current governance structure contradicted the intent of Sections 14 and 15 of the National Health Security Act, which emphasize checks and balances and inclusive participation. Members of both the National Health Security Board and the Quality and Standards Control Board have consecutively rotated across multiple terms, with some members concurrently serving on more than three subcommittees. This led to role overlaps between policymakers (principals) and implementers (agents), especially when individuals held dual roles at the central and regional levels. To prevent concentration of power, the study recommends introducing legal safeguards, including mandatory breaks after two consecutive terms when rotating between the main boards, limiting each member to no more than two concurrent subcommittees, and reconsidering the appointment of central board members to regional subcommittees.

References

Thailand’s Universal Coverage Scheme: Achievements and Challenges. An independent assessment of the first 10 years (2001-2010). Nonthaburi, Thailand: Health Insurance System Research Office; 2012 [cited 2025 Jul]. Available from: [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/gdcovop/2013341727/2013341727.pdf.

Huang X, Yoshino N. Impacts of universal health coverage: Financing, income inequality, and social welfare. ADBI Working Paper; 2016 [cited 2025 Jul]. Available from: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/214481/adbi-wp617.pdf.

Suriyawongpaisal P, Srithamrongsawat S, Apibunyopas Y, Nipaporn S, Prasitsiriphon O, Bamrungkhet W, et al. Evaluation of emergency accident care services under the “Emergency care for all” policy across the three major health insurance schemes. Nonthaburi: Thai Health Insurance System Research Office; 2012 [cited 2025 Jul]. Available from: https://kb.hsri.or.th/dspace/handle/11228/3749?locale-attribute=th. (in Thai)

Nikomborirak D, Paibuljitari V, Srisuwankes T, Lilhawess P. Development of governance guidelines for the Universal Health Coverage system. Nonthaburi: Thai Health Insurance System Research Office; 2013. (in Thai)

Srisasalux J, Singthipphun E. Good governance in health system management. J Health Syst Res 2008;2(2):172-8. (in Thai)

Gailmard S. Accountability and principal-agent theory. The Oxford handbook of public accountability. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 90-105.

Papanicolas I, Karanikolos M, Figueras J, Rajan D, editors. Working towards a common approach: the HSPA Framework for UHC. In: Health system performance assessment: a framework for policy analysis. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2022: 26 p.

Digital Government Development Agency. Open government data guideline version 1.0. Bangkok: Digital Government Development Agency; 2020 [cited 2025 Jul]. Available from: https://gdhelppage.gdcatalog.go.th/data/05/files/Final_GD-Catalog-Guideline-v1.0.pdf. (in Thai)

International Association for Public Participation. IAP2 core values, code of ethics and spectrum for public participation. Denver (CO): International Association for Public Participation; 2024 [cited 2025 Jul]. Available from: https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars.

Downloads

Published

30-12-2025

How to Cite

1.
Wichitaksorn N, Saelawong T, Dumkum C, Plangpraphan J, Amarase N, Chotikasathian T, Chuyingsakultip M, Hamu A, Naphim T. An Assessment of the National Health Security Scheme: Governance and Management Perspectives. J Health Syst Res [internet]. 2025 Dec. 30 [cited 2026 Jan. 2];19(4):338-61. available from: https://he04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/j_hsr/article/view/3520

Issue

Section

Original article