ASEAN Economic Community and Health Services Trade
Valerie Gilbert Ulep
Visiting Research Fellow, Japan Center for Economic Research
Tokyo, Japan
Supervising Research Specialist, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Makati City, Philippines
Abstract
Over the years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has progressed from a loose to a stable regional organization. In the advent of globalization and regionalism, it has gained enormous potential not only for economic trade, but also for exchange of political and socio-cultural values. To demonstrate the strong commitment of the region, the 10-member countries envisioned an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in by 2015. Under AEC, there will be free flow of goods and services intra and extra-regionally. Healthcare services are being eyed as one of the key areas to liberalize. However, given the complexity of healthcare as a public good, what are the potential effects of trade in the general healthcare system of countries in the region? This paper has two objectives: (1) determine the extent of trade in health services in the ASEAN region and (2) determine the potential effects of ASEAN Economic Integration on the healthcare system.
Table of Contents
I. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Brief background of AEC .................................................................................................................. 1
III. Services Trade in ASEAN ................................................................................................................ 3
a. Services and services trade .............................................................................................................. 3
b. Trade in health services ................................................................................................................... 5
IV. Health status and outcomes ............................................................................................................. 6
a. Health status ..................................................................................................................................... 7
b. Fertlity and population trends ........................................................................................................ 8
c. Disease trends ................................................................................................................................... 9
d. Healthcare outputs .......................................................................................................................... 9
V. Prospects and implications of AEC in the health sector ............................................................... 14
a. Cross-border supply (Mode I) ...................................................................................................... 14
b. Consumption abroad (Mode II) ................................................................................................... 16
c. Commercial presence (Mode III) .................................................................................................. 17
d. Temporary movement (Mode IV) ................................................................................................ 18
VI. Barriers to free trade liberalization .............................................................................................. 19
VII. Policy implications ........................................................................................................................ 20
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Components of AEC blueprint .................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Share of service industry on the total GDP ..................................................................... 3 Table 3. Modes of trade in services ............................................................................................ 3 Table 4. Value of trade in services, 2000-2012, ASEAN (in ten million) ...................................... 4 Table 5. Share of services on total trade, 2000-2012, ASEAN (in ten million) .............................. 4 Table 6. Share of different industry in the total value of trade, ASEAN, 2012 .............................. 5 Table 7. Examples of traded health services by mode ................................................................ 6 Table 8. Total Fertility Rates, population and annual population growth rate, 2012 ......................... 8 Table 9. Sources of health financing, by country ........................................................................ 10 Table 10. Health facility, by ownership ..................................................................................... 11 Table 11. Frequency and growth rates of graduates and enrollees of healthcare related courses in
ASEAN ................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 12. Examples of telemedicine models in well-economically integrated economies ............ 15 Table 13. Comparing the prices of healthcare services ................................................................ 17 Table 14. Example of commercial presence of foreign firms in ASEAN .................................... 17 Table 15. Number of health workers migrating to Singapore and Saudi Arabia, Philippines,
1995-2010 ............................................................................................................................. 18 Table 16. Commitments under mode III .................................................................................... 19
1
ASEAN Economic Community and Health Services Trade
By: Valerie Gilbert Ulep1
I. Background
Over the years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has progressed from a loose to stable regional organization. In the advent of globalization and regionalism, it has gained enormous potential not only for economic trade, but also for exchange of political and socio-cultural values. To demonstrate the strong commitment of the region, the 10-member countries envisioned an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2003. The blueprint outlining the specfics of this community was released in 2007. ASEAN targets the establishment of AEC by 2015. Although there are factors that hinder the full implementation in the short term, economic integration is an indispensable direction for the region. As every member country aspires for economic competitiveness, AEC appears to be an instrument for economic growth in the medium to long term. The elements stipulated in the AEC blueprint cover range of economic, socio-cultural and political commitments. However, relevant to this study, the creation of single market and production base, which will allow services to flow freely intra and extra-regionally is one of main thrusts of AEC. By deepening trade liberalization, it is expected that member countries would loosen their barriers to allow free flow of investments, labor and information. AEC traverses the deeper motivation of trade liberalization and economic integration, which is sustaianable and equitable distribution of income and social provisions. Healthcare is one of the indispensable social provisions. As more countries begin to embrace the global campaign for universal healthcare (UHC), significant programmatic and policy effect have been poured in the sector. Over the last decade, significant improvements were identified like higher fiscal space for health and changes in the health policy directions. However, despite these efforts, many countries in the region are still suffering from poor health outcomes. Given the increasing commitment towards UHC and momentum to adopt AEC, what are the potential outcomes of AEC in the health systems? Will the AEC live up a vision of equity in the healthcare sector? It is important to understand that liberalization might alter the current health system dynamics as there will be fundamental changes in policies towards human resources, healthcare education and regulation. This technical report aims to achieve the following: (1) determine the magnitude of trade activities in health services in the ASEAN region and (2) determine the potential effects of liberalizing the healthcare market in the healthcare system.
II. Brief background of AEC
ASEAN Economic Community is one of three pillars of the envisioned ASEAN Community. The two other pillars are: ASEAN Security Socio-cultural Communities. As stipulated in related documents and agreements, AEC is a key strategy to “transform ASEAN into a stable, prosperous and highly competitive region with equitable economic development, and reduced poverty and socio economic disparities” (ASEAN, 2007). In 2003, the leaders of ASEAN declared the ASEAN Economic Community blueprint at the Bali Concord. In 2007, at the 11th ASEAN Summit, the leaders made strong commitment to accelerate the implementation of AEC by 2015. AEC envisages the following: (a) a single market and production base, (b) a highly competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitable economic development, and (d) a region fully integrated into the global economy. Each characteristic can be achieved by implementing the specific action points (as shown in Table 1):
1 He is a Visiting Research Fellow at Japan Center for Economic Research in Tokyo and Supervising Research Specialist at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies in Manila.
2
Table 1. Components of AEC blueprint
Characteristics SpecificsProduction of single market or production base (A). a. Free flow of goods
b. Free flow of services c. Free flow of investments d. Free flow of capital e. Free flow of skilled labor f. Identification of priority areas for integration
Economic competitiveness (B) a. Competition policyb. Consumer protection c. Intellection property rights d. Infrastructure development e. Taxation f. E-commerce
Equitable development (C) a. SME developmentb. Technical development integration
Integration to global economy (D) a. Policies and approaches towards integration to global economy
b. Enhance global participation in the global supply networks
ASEAN has been allowing the free movement of goods and services under several free trade agreements. However, under AEC, trade practices will be deepened as more merchandise goods and services will be free-flowing intra and extra-regionally. The expansion of trade practices under AEC increases the demand to change wide range of political and economic structures and policies. These include streamlining existing regulatory standards (e.g. mutual recognition agreements) and adoption of new laws to stir foreign investments and competition. Rationalizing economic integration as anti-poverty and inequality instrument
The goal of AEC is poverty and inequality reduction (ASEAN, 2007). Over the last decade, the economic growth in the region has been impressive. Many Southeast Asians were pulled out from poverty. However, despite these gains, poverty and inequality still persist especially in low and middle-income countries in the region. Perennial poverty with high-level inequality must be addressed as this affect long-term economic growth. Inequality impedes the growth of the middle-class and restricts sustainable production of human capital, which then adversely affects labor productivity in the long run (ERIA Research Institute Network, 2013).Inequality also traverses other domains of society by infecting social and political stability. But how integration and trade liberalization affect social development? Economic integration is argued as potential instrument in improving social and human development via four pathways: (1) income, (2) access to services, (3) empowerment and (4) sustainability (UNDP). Although some empirical evidence attribute economic integration to greater income inequality and lower wage of skilled workers, convincing body of literature shows positive effects on welfare. Studies on the effect of economic blocs like East Asian Community and Southern African Development Community suggest positive impact on higher income, income equality and economic growth (Ezaki and Nguyen, 2008; Jeanette and Enciso, 2011; Mashayekhi, Peters and Vanzeta, 2012). Income is underpinned by employment, and economic integration open doors for greater employment opportunities. Standard economic theory like Stolper-Samuelson explains the positive effect of economic integration, such as expansion of comparative advantages among countries. As countries build comparative advantages, it results to better employment, efficiency and innovativeness. This is also facilitated by greater cross-border movement of human resources, infrastructure investments and common policies and regulation. The quality of employment has also important bearing on social and human development. Although no empirical existing evidence to support this, the highly competitive environment in an economically integrated market, it can possibly increase the demand for better work conditions and benefits.
3
Prices also play an important link between employment and human development (UNDP, 2011; Prina, 2007). Economic studies on different industries shows decrease in the prices of goods and services (especially the prices of domestic firms) in multi-lateral trade environment (Tovar, 2003: Yang and Hwang. 2003). As economic integration promotes competition in the market, the efficiency of producers improves, thereby decreases the price of services and goods.
III. Services Trade in ASEAN Parallel with the objective of this report, this section focuses on the current trends of services trade (including health services) in ASEAN. Merchandise goods that affects social health provisions (e.g. trade of drugs and medical devices) is not included in this report.
a. Services and services trade Services industry is the second largest origin of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in ASEAN. However, in Singapore and the Philippines, service industry is the lifeblood of their domestic economies as it accounts for more than 50 percent of their GDP. Other countries have stagnating or decreasing share of the service industry, but the value is increasing in steady pace (see table 2).
Table 2. Share of service industry on the total GDP
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Brunei 35.3 38.8 38.2 34.6 31.0 27.5 26.1 28.0 25.3 33.7 32.5 27.7 28.2
Cambodia 39.1 40.3 41.5 40.1 41.7 41.2 40.8 41.3 41.3 41.3 40.7 39.8 40.1
Indonesia 38.5 38.3 40.1 41.1 41.0 40.3 40.1 39.5 37.5 37.1 37.7 38.2 38.6
Lao PDR 38.2 38.9 37.8 37.7 40.5 39.2 37.0 37.0 36.6 38.3 35.5 35.7 35.8
Malaysia 43.1 45.8 45.9 44.1 42.2 45.4 44.9 45.4 44.9 49.8 48.5 47.8 49.1
Myanmar 33.1 32.4 32.5 35.1 35.4
Philippines 51.6 52.3 52.3 52.7 52.9 53.5 54.1 54.5 53.9 55.2 55.1 55.9 57.1
Singapore 65.4 68.1 68.1 68.8 67.1 68.4 68.7 71.1 73.5 72.5 72.5 73.3 73.2
Thailand 49.0 48.7 48.1 46.0 46.3 45.8 44.9 44.6 44.4 45.2 43.0 43.7 44.2
Vietnam 43.1 43.0 43.0 42.5 42.5 42.6 42.7 42.8 42.5 43.4 42.9 42.0 41.7
World 66.7 67.7 68.3 68.5 68.2 68.4 68.4 68.6 69.1 70.9 69.9
Source: Analysis of the World Bank data Services comprise of activities that are not easily customized and therefore require direct interaction and transaction between provider (producer) and consumer. Unlike merchandise goods, services are usually intangible, non-storable and consumption is simultaneous with production. However, as argued by many economists, services can now be customized because as technology progresses [Mortensen, 2008]. In principle, how services are traded? In merchandise goods, trade occurs when there is free movement of tangible products from one foreign country to another. In services, people and information are the usual ‘carriers’. Based on the General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS), there are four modes of trade in services (see table 3):
Table 3. Modes of trade in services
Mode of supply FeaturesMode 1: Cross-border supply Suppliers resident in one country provide services in another country
without physical movement of neither supplier not consumer Mode 2: Consumption abroad Consumer resident in one country travel to the country of suppliers to
consume a services
4
Mode 3: Commercial presence Firms moving to the long location through establishment of foreign affiliate or branch
Mode 4: Temporary movement of natural person
Individual suppliers travelling temporarily to the country of the consumers to provide a services
Source: GATS GATS paved the way for the more formal recognition of trade in services. The creation of GATS underpinned by the objectives of merchandise trade as enshrined in GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade)—“ensuring fair and equitable trade practices, stimulating activity and promoting trade and development through progressive liberalization” (World Trade Organization, 1995). Over the years, the value of traded services has increased significantly. According to Mortensen (2008), the value of traded services in 2008 is USD 2.7 trillion, a 347 increase from 1990. However, the share on the total trade remained constant at 20 percent. In Southeast Asia, the total value of services trade in 2012 is approximately USD 530 billion, a 237 percent increase from 2000. The share on the total trade hovered around 16-17 percent over the last decade, only the Philippines and Singapore have an increasing trend. The growing share of services trade on the total trade in these two countries reflects their service-oriented economies (see Tables 4 and 5). If GATS classification of trade in services is followed, the aforementioned estimates can be grossly underestimated. As of this writing, the only possible source of data is the Expanded Balance of Payments (EBOPS) database of the United Nations and World Trade Organization. According to Mortensen, the total value of modes 3 and 4 might not be totally captured in the EBOPS. By looking at direct investments (inbound and outbound) and foreign worker salaries, the more realistic value of modes 3 and 4 can be captured. The United Nations attempted to capture direct investments on services through the FATS, remittance and foreign worker salary databases. However, these databases are still incomplete.
Table 4. Value of trade in services, 2000-2012, ASEAN (in ten million)
Country 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Percent change
Brunei Darussalam 96.6 130.3 161.9 195.9 227.0 143.1%
Cambodia 75.6 98.0 131.9 210.3 269.1 282.5 273.7%
Indonesia 2,085.4 2,287.7 3,291.0 3,291.0 4,349.0 4,286.0 5,386.0 158.3%
Lao PDR 21.9 20.9 22.0 28.6 52.2 117.7%
Malaysia 3,069.0 3,134.0 3,638.0 4,529.0 6,136.0 6,466.0 8,013.0 161.1%
Myanmar 76.9 70.0 67.6 83.6 91.7 19.3%
Philippines 862.4 885.8 986.3 1,275.1 1,827.4 2,546.0 3,249.0 276.7%
Singapore 5,860.0 6,202.0 9,086.0 12,527.0 18,078.0 19,941.0 23,780.0 305.8%
Thailand 2,927.0 3,213.0 4,206.0 5,719.0 7,916.0 7,935.0 10,269.0 250.8%
Viet Nam 595.4 664.6 876.7 1,022.2 1,496.2 1,738.1 2,212.0 271.5%
ASEAN 15,670.2 16,706.2 22,467.4 28,881.5 40,442.7 43,194.6 52,909.0 237.6%
Source: UN data on services trade Note: UN data on services trade is based on Expanded Balance of Payments; base year for % change is 2000 and end year is the latest available data
Table 5. Share of services on total trade, 2000-2012, ASEAN (in ten million)
Country 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Brunei 11.0% 11.1% 9.5%
Cambodia 2.4% 2.6% 2.2% 2.4% 1.8% 1.8%
Indonesia 17.9% 20.5% 21.8% 16.9% 14.0% 12.7% 12.4%
Malaysia 14.6% 15.4% 13.5% 13.4% 14.8% 15.1% 15.9%
Philippines 10.3% 10.4% 10.3% 11.2% 14.3% 18.8% 21.7%
Singapore 17.7% 20.4% 19.6% 19.7% 21.6% 23.1% 23.2%
Thailand 18.2% 19.4% 18.0% 18.0% 18.2% 17.3% 17.6%
Viet Nam 16.5% 15.4% 13.0% 10.8% 9.4% 10.0% 8.8%
ASEAN 16.1% 17.3% 16.6% 16.0% 16.6% 16.7% 16.5%
Source: AuNote: COM Table 6 shhighest cocompared
Table 6.
TransportaTravel leisure andCommunicConstructiInsurance FinancialsICT Royalties Other busiPersonal health seeducation)GovernmeSource: Au The valuebillion in 5-6 percen
Source: Au
Based on noted in th‘carriers’ o
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
In t
hou
san
d U
SD
uthor’s calculaMTRADE data
hows the shontributors. F
to their coun
Share of dif
ation (business
d medical) cation ion
inesses (including
ervices and) ent uthor’s calcula
e of traded se2005 to USD
nt of the tota
uthor’s calcula
b. Trade
GATS classihe earlier secof service (d
42,5
-
0,000,000
0,000,000
0,000,000
0,000,000
0,000,000
0,000,000
0,000,000
2
ation using daa was used to d
hare of tradeFinancial sernterparts.
fferent indus
Cambodi30.0
s, 51.8
5.0 3.8 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.0
g d
0.0
2.7 ation using da
ervices by AD 88 billionl value of tra
ation using da
e in health s
ification and ction, in healetailed descr
553,96648,81
2005 20
Figure 1. Valu
Total Service
ta from UN Trdetermine the
e in servicesrvices in Sin
try in the tot
a Indonesia30.028.6
3.6 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.7 3.5
23.20.7
2.2 ta from UN Tr
ASEAN is in in 2011, aro
aded services
ta from ASEA
ervices
nomenclaturlthcare, inforription of eac
8,003
62,769,
06 2007
ue of ASEAN S
es (World)
Trade Services trade value of
s by industryngapore and
tal value of t
a Malaysia22.0 39.5
2.8 4.2 1.9 0.6 4.5 2.6
20.5 1.0
0.4 Trade Service
ncreasing. Wound 100 pes.
AN
re, trade in hrmation, persch mode will
,172
72,508,10
7 2008
Services Trade, W
Total Services (
and COMTRAof merchandise
y. TransportaICT in the P
trade, ASEA
Philippine19.9 31.6
2.1 0.5 1.4 0.5 6.8 1.6
34.4 0.3
1.0
Within the regercent increa
health serviceson or the tanl be discusse
01
61,469,352
2009
World and Intr
(INTRA-ASEAN)
ADE. e goods.
ation and traPhilippines a
AN, 2012
s Singapor35.1 18.8
0.5 1.1 3.4 8.1
8.2
24.3 0.4
0.2
gion, the valuse. However
es can also ongible healthd separately
75,624,554
2010
ra-ASEAN
Share
avel industriare significan
re Thailand35.0 40.3
0.9 0.7 3.5 0.8 0.1 0.5
17.7 0.1
0.6
ue grew fromr, this only a
occur in four h facilities ar
in the next s
88,742,035
2011
5
ies are the ntly higher
d Vietnam48.8 39.3
0.9 1.8 2.9 1.5 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.1
1.3
m USD 42 accounts to
modes. As re the usual section).
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10
6.20
6.30
Table 7.
Mode of sMode 1: Cross-bord
Mode 2: Consumpt
Mode 3: Cpresence
Mode 4:Temporarymovementperson Figure 2 services bincreasingrelatively
Source
IV.
The ASEAall cornerreveals ththe social similaritieneed to hiwould fachealth stat
5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
In t
hou
san
d U
SD
Examples o
supply
der supply
tion abroad
Commercial
: y t of natural
shows that vbeing traded g pattern. Gilow value su
e: Author’s c
Health sta
AN Region drs of the gloe level of didevelopmen
es of ASEANghlight these
cilitate beneftus (outputs)
-
500,000
000,000
500,000
000,000
500,000
200
f traded hea
Features Suppliers rprovide sewithout phneither supConsumertravel to thconsume aFirms movthrough esaffiliate orIndividualtemporarilconsumers
value of heawithin and
iven the lackuggests that h
calculation us
atus and out
depicts an inobe. The widisparity of sont sector (incN countries we differencesficial integrafollowed by
05 2006
Figure 2. Va
alth services b
resident in oervices in anohysical movepplier not cor resident in ohe country ofa servicesving to the lostablishment r branchl suppliers traly to the couns to provide a
alth servicesoutside the
k of data, thhealthcare is
sing data fro
tcomes
nteresting mide variation ocio-economcluding healtwith regard ts and similariation of healy healthcare s
2007
alue of Health S
To
by mode
one country other countryement of onsumerone country f suppliers to
ong location of foreign
avelling ntry of the a services
s is less thanregion. Tho
he value of istill insulate
om ASEAN
ixture of heaof current
mic policy inthcare). Thto health sta
rities to map lth and sociasystem inves
2008
Services Trade o
otal health
Example
y Telemedi
o Medical
Foreign ihealth fa
Migrationurses anprofessioor Middl
n one percenough the valintra-regionaed from trade
alth conditionand progres
nstruments anhis section attatus and heal
out policy anal services. Tstments (inpu
2009
of ASEAN to th
Share
icine
tourism
investments fcilities
n of Filipinond allied healonals to Singae East.
nt (0.40-0.50lue is relativ
al trade canne liberalizatio
ns and healths of health nd political ctempts to shothcare systemnd programmThe discussiuts).
2010
he World
CarInfo
Per
for Hoclin
o lth
gapore
Per
0 percent) ovely small, tnot be estimaon.
hcare systemstatus amoncommitment
how the diffem. Arguabmatic interveion will com
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2011
6
rrierormation
rson
spitals and nics
rson
of the total there is an ated. The
ms found in ng ASEAN t poured in erences and bly, there is entions that mmence on
0.20%
0.25%
0.30%
0.35%
0.40%
0.45%
0.50%
0.55%
Infant moregarded ainfant moBrunei caVietnam, Africa.
High dispsocio-econPhilippinecomparablreflects hi Over the decrease icountry inlevels. Thcountries. lowest IM3.5%-4% The variahealthcarehealthcarebe atribuout-of-pocHendren, 2
a. Healt
ortality reflecas one of thrtality rate a
an be compaCambodia a
Fig
Aut
parity in henomic statuses, IMR in afle to the higgh level of in
years, IMRin every coun ASEAN cohe region as
Brunei has MR. Indonesi
annual decre
ation in proge system. In te program (Tuted to solicket-paymen2013]. In con
th status
cts the diffehe most sensamong countared to OECand Lao PDR
gure 3. Infan
thor’s calcula
ealth status s at the couffluent regio
gh-IMR regioncome and r
Rs in most cuntry is highompared to o
a whole, ththe lowest aa and Thailaease compare
gress in IMthe case of TThe 30 Baht d reforms
nts and increntrast, the Ph
erent stages sitive measurtries in ASECD countrieR can be com
nt Mortality
ation of Worl
is not onlyuntry level ns shows rel
ons in Africaesource ineq
countries arohly variable.other regionshe annual deannual growtand, though ted to their co
R mirrors tThailand, one
Program) inin the heaease the demhilippines ex
of healthcares of health
EAN. The IMes. While compared to E
y Rates, ASE
ld Bank data
y apparent also revealslatively low. a. The high vquality in mo
ound the wo. Figure 4 ss of the worecrease in IMth rate. Howthey have hiounterparts li
the presencee of the fist mn 2001, the dalth financinemand and uxperienced pa
re referral sh status. FigMR of countountries like Eastern Euro
EAN countri
a
across couns high levelWhile in the
variation in host countries.
orld are dechows the perld and counMR is comp
wever, as notigh IMRs in ike Vietnam
e of long-termiddle-incomdrastic decreng structureutillziation oaltry decreas
system. Hengure 3 showstries like Sin
Philippinesope, South A
ies, 2012
ntries. Analyl of disparite poorest reghealth status
creasing. Inercent annuantries groupeparable to loted in figure the 1980`s, and Philippi
rm strategy me countries t
ase in IMR , which inof healthcaree in IMR (ar
nce, these ins the wide-dngapore, Mas, Indonesia,America and
ysis by proty. In the cgions, the IMs at the coun
n ASEAN, tal decrease ied according ow and midd 4, Brunei smanaged to
ines.
and directioto implemen(4.1%, annu
n return decre [Townsenround 2.5%).
7
ndicators is disparity in alaysia and , Thailand, regions in
ovince and ase of the
MR is high, try level is
the rate of in IMR by to income
dle income till has the sustain an
on in thee nt universal ually) can crease the
nd, Gruber, .
F
Au
In generaldecrease bcan be attThailand have TFR
Table 8. T
Brunei Dar
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Source: Wo
Figure 4. An
uthor’s calcu
b. Fertil
l, the ASEANby country altributed to thexperienced (number of
Total Fertility
russalam
s
orld Bank data
nnual decrea
ulation of Wo
lity and pop
N region haslso shows hihe difference
rapid decrechildren per
y Rates, popu
a
ase in IMR,
orld Bank dat
ulation tren
s experiencedigh level of de of fertility ase in total woman) of m
ulation and a
Pop
by country,
ta
nds
d rapid decredisparity (seedynamics acfertility ratemore than 3.
annual popu
pulation Grow
1.34
1.80
1.21
1.85
1.62
0.87
1.73
1.62
0.34
1.05
, region and
easing popule table 8). cross countries. While Ph.
ulation growt
wth Rate
income gro
lation growthThe variationies. Over thehilippines, C
th rate, 2012
P
1
2
2
5
9
6
8
oup, 2012
h. However, n in populate years, Sing
Cambodia an
2
Population
417,784
15,135,169
249,865,631
6,769,727
29,716,965
53,259,018
98,393,574
5,399,200
67,010,502
89,708,900
8
the rate of ion growth gapore and d Lao still
Like mostgeneral, ardiseases (emost low still haunthave been As studies(e.g. cardithreat to healthcaredelivery fhave stroncountries (
HealthcareIn this secare briefly Health fin Total healcompared percent), whealth expHowever, For almos
S There is nis accountof privateunregulate
c. Disea
t emerging round 7-9 ofe.g. cardio-vand middle
ted by perinnn eradicated i
s have showio-vascular dthe econom
e system becfacilities (e.gng capacity (Ulep, 2012)
d. Healt
e outputs arection, healthy discussed.
nancing
lth expendituto the worl
while Myanmpenditure, relas noted in t
st all countrie
Source: Worl
notable increated to private
e expenditureed participati
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1995
se trends
economies, f the ten lea
vascular diseincome counnial health pin most adva
wn, non-commdiseases, can
my. The highcause of the g. clinics and
diagnose an).
thcare outpu
e resources ah financing, h
ure in ASEAld average (mar has the llatively lowethe earlier sees in the regi
ld Bank data
ase in healthe expenditure is an spill ion of the pri
1996 1997 1998
Figure 5. Hea
Brunei D
Lao PDR
Philippi
Vietnam
countries inding causes ases, diabetentries like Laroblem relatnced countri
municable dncers, diabeh level of m
high cost red hospitals) and manage d
uts
and investmenhuman resou
AN is approxi10 percent).lowest share er compared ection, the heon, the avera
a
h expenditurere (out-of-po
over effect ivate sector i
1999 2000 2001
alh Expenditure
Darussalam
R
nes
m
n ASEAN isof mortality
es, cancers aao, Myanmated to infectoies.
diseases whicetes and chromortality attrequirements and human rdiseases, wh
ents within thurces and he
imately 4 peVietnam ha
(2 percent).to OECD an
ealth coutcomage health ex
e in the regioocket expend
of the increin the healthc
1 2002 2003 20
e per capita, AS
Indonesia
Myanmar
Singapore
s experienciy can be nowand chronic oar, Vietnam, Pous diseases
ch requires lonic pulmonributed to Nin treating
resources (e.hich is a stru
he health sectealth service
ercent of the as the highes On per capi
nd high incomme of the couxpenditure pe
on. Howeverditure and preasing healthcare system.
04 2005 2006 2
SEAN countries
Cam
Mal
Thai
ng rapid epw be attributeobstructive pPhilippines a(e.g. tubercu
longer and enary diseasesNCDs puts fthese diseasg. doctors anuggle for lo
tor that drivedelivery (he
total GDP. Tst share of hita basis, Sinme countriesuntry is one oer capita is le
r, substantialivate insuranhcare cost, h
007 2008 2009
, 1995-2011
mbodia
aysia
iland
pidemiologiced to non-co
pulmonary diand Indonesiulosis, malar
expensive ints) imposes efiscal pressu
ses. The heaand nurses) sow and midd
es the healthealth facility
This is relatihealth expenngapore has ts (USD 2,300of the best iness than USD
l portion of tnce). The raphealthcare de
2010 2011
9
shift. In omunicable iseases). In ia, they are ria), which
terventions enourmous ure on the alth service should also dle-income
outcomes. networks)
ively lower nditure (6.8 the highest 0 vs 4,000). n the world. D 400.
this growth pid growth emand and
The goal othe lowestof signific1990s. Tsubsidizesaccounts fcoverage ( Vietnam, healthcareon the emnot covere For upperSingaporeeventual hfinancing rapidly (Afinancing
S
Table 9. S
Co Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippine
Vietnam
Thailand
Cambodia
of every cout share of OOcant reforms The countrys healthcare for 2 percent(Tien & Phu
Indonesia ane coverage to
mployment aned with socia
r-middle aneans use out-healthcare exare provide
Asia Pacific sources for e
Source: Worl
ources of he
ountry a
es
a
34.1
49.9
16.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Indonesia
untry is to reOP to the totin the health
y imposes mfor the poort of the popuong, 2011; Ju
nd Philippino all populatnd socio-econal insurace.
nd high inco-of-pocket foxpenditures
ed by the goObservator
each country
ld Health Or
alth financin
Highly sinsurance(3) HMO
(1) Direcpocket an(1) Unifi
are subsgovernm(1) Unifiprivate in(1) InsurMedical Coverage(1) Direc
40.4
49
55.7
39
4.0 11
a Viet Nam Lao PeDemo
Repu
Fgure 6
educe the higtal health exh system. Thmandatory iand uninsur
ulation. In urjus, 2013).
es adopted stion through nomic classi
ome couintror healthcarethrough the
overnment fy, 2012; Ha
y.
rganization
ng, by countr
egmented ane for the poo
Os; and (4) O
ct governmennd private insfied social insidized by ent taxation ed social ins
nsurance andrance schemBenefit Sch
e Scheme forct governme
.3
85.1.7
14.8.0 0.2
eople'scratic
ublic
BruneiDarussalam
C
. Shares of differe
Governme
gh level of oxpenditure. Thailand is oninsurance ared. Voluntar2011, almos.
social insuramanadator,
ification. How
ries, mode oe services. He Medisave from taxatioaseltine, 201
ry
Mnd fragmenteor-Jasmeskas
OOP
nt revenue asurance for psurance for athe govern
and revenuesurance, the pd OOPme for privaheme and Cr the poor; (3ent revenue
22.5
31.0
56.9
60.4
20.7 8.6
Cambodia Singapore
ent sources of finan
ent OOP other p
out-of-pocketThe low OOPne of the fewmong formary private inst 98 percent
ance system voluntary anwever, signi
of health fiHowever, they
Program. Inon, but priva12). Table 9
ode of financed insurance
s; (2) Insuran
and taxation private facilitall populationment (Phil
poor are sub
ate and govCompulsory 3) Private HM
and tax; (2
75.5
33
13.7 55
10.9 10
e Thailand Philip
ncing, ASEAN, 20
private
t expenditureP can be attri
countries toal workers,
nsurance are t of the popu
as mode of nd subsidizedficant portion
inancing slsoy are manda
n Brunei andate expenditu9 summarize
cinge systems. (1nce for forma
in public facties.
on, where thelHealth), (2
sidized by th
vernment wMedical Sc
MOs and OO2) OOP; (3)
.3
55.2
.9 35.4
.7 9.4
pines Malaysia M
011
re (OOP). Thibuted the tw
o introduce Uand the g
also exists, ulation have
financing. Td premiums
on of the pop
o varies. Mated to to savd Malaysia, ures are alses the differ
1) Governmal workers- J
cilities, and
e premiums o2) HMOs,
he governme
workers (Civcheme); (2)
OP ) other form
13.0
80.7
6.4
Myanmar
10
hailand has wo decades UHC in the government
but it only healthcare
The goal is depending
pulation are
Majority of ve for their healthcare o growing rent health
ment-funded Jamsostek;
(2) Out of
of the poor (3) direct
ent, and (2)
vil Servant Universal
ms of local
11
voluntary insuranceSingapore (1) Medical savings; (2) Private insurance and OOPMyanmar Direct government revenue and tax; (2) OOP and (3) donors Brunei Direct government revenue and taxLao Social protection schemes for civil servants, community-based insurance, OOP Service delivery/infrastructure Service delivery cover the networks of health facilities (both primary care center and hospitals that delivers high level of care). In ideal scenario, the population should have access to primary care centers for basic and general healthcare needs. If higher level of care is needed, they should be referred to hospitals. To have this ideal eco-system, primary care facilities, which can be managed and owned by the government or private entities should be close and widely accessible to the people, while hospitals should be strategically located to facilitate referral system.
The countries in ASEAN demonstrate a hetergeous health delivery system, from almost purely private, mixed to almost public primary care and hospital systems. In Singapore, almost 80 percent of primary care centers and hospitals are managed by the sector. In the Philippines and Indonesia, half of the hopsitals are privately-owned. In contrast, almost all hospitals are controlled by the government (see table 10).
Table 10. Health facility, by ownership
Countries Primary care provision Hospital provisions Singapore 80 percent of the pimary care clinics
are operated by the private sector. The remaining 20 percent are ‘polyclinics’ are owned by the government
Majority private hospitals
Philippines Primary care are delivered by both public and private in a highly-segmented market set-up. There is no data on the share of private and publicly-managed primary care facilities.
56 percent of the hopsitals are privately-owned
Malaysia Primary care are delivered by both public and private in a highly-segmented market set-up. Out of the 3145 primary centers, around 45 percent are owned by the private sector
No data
Lao PDR Primary care are delivered by both public and private in a highly-segmented market set-up. Out of the 1000 primary clinics, around 200 are privately owned.
No data
Vietnam There are around 31, 000 private clinics in Vietnam compared to 11, 000 community health centers managed by the government. Around 60 percent of those who seek outpatient care goes to private clinics.
Out of the 725 hospitals, around 85 are privately-owned.Unlike the primary care system, only 4 percent of those admitted patients goes to private hospitals.
Brunei The 30 primary care centers are all government-owned
Majority are public hopsitals
Myanmar No data No data Cambodia No data No data Thailand Almost all the primary sations are 1,002 public hospitals and 316
Indonesia
Human re
In ASEANThe threerelative to(see figure
F
S
The relativoutput of hof health w
esources
N, the numbee richest couo the populate 7).
Figure 7. Nu
Source: Anal
vely high dehealth workeworkers com
er of health wuntries, Singtion, while P
umber of he
lysis of WHO
ensity of humers. Majority
mpared to oth
publicly funhealth statio
No data
workers relatgapore, MalaPhilippines h
alth worker
O dataset on
man resourcey of which arer countries
nded. There ons
tive to the sizaysia and Bhas the the h
rs per 1000 p
human resou
es in the Phire nurses. Figin ASEAN.
are 9,765
ze of the poprunei have
highest numb
population,
urces
ilippines is agure 8 demo
registered pri
hospitals. Out of the 18Indonesia, 10hospitals.
pulation is vathe highest ber both gro
by country,
attritubuted tnstrate the h
ivate
870 hospital in092 are privat
ariable acrosnumber of ss number a
2011
to the large high level of
12
n e
s countries. physicians
and density
production production
Figure 8.
Note: AuthEducation Hence, proj Philippineperceived period puimmgratiorecruitmeneducation
Table 11.
ASEAN
Country
Viet Nam Thailand Singapore PhilippinesMyanmar Malaysia Lao PDR Indonesia Cambodia Brunei Note: AuthEducation projection e With regaraverage mhealth in lsalary comstandard o
Share of en
hor’s calculat(CHED) and
ojection estima
es experienceto be high. T
ushed many on. However,nt became ris beginning
Frequency
Frequen91,
14415,
s 38926,
1191,2
2103,23
hor’s calculat(CHED) andestimates wer
rd to salary monthly salarlow and mimpared to ricof living.
rolled and g
tion of multip(3) Singapore
ates were used
ed an upsurgThe sluggish college en, as barriers relativet to pg to slow dow
and growth
Enroncy (2011) ,893
4,721 ,541
9,604 ,300
9,751 276
0,620 223 37
tion of multipd (3) Singapore used.
of health prory of health iddle incomcher countrie
graduate in
ple data source Minstry of Ed.
ge in enrolmeh domestic ecntrants to pfor employmproduction. Cwn, but the su
h rates of g
ollment % Annual G
14.3
10.8-4.80
15.3-2.40
11.3-5.30
ple data sourcre Minstry of
ofessionals, tworkers
me countriies like Thail
health profe
ces from: (1)Education. Som
ent and graduconomy coup
pursue nursinment were imCurrently, thupply is still
graduates an
Growth Rate0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0% ces from: (1)f Education. S
there is wideby selectedies like Mland and Sin
essionals, 20
UNESCO, (2me data points
uation rates pled with higng educatio
mposed in somhe enrolmen high compa
nd enrollees
Frequency11,34
3,00138,1
3,9123,50
24350,05
620184
UNESCO, (2Some data po
e-variation acd ASEANMyanmar angapore even
010 and 2011
(2) Philippines in the data fr
as demand fogh unemployn for oversme countriesnt and graduared to other A
of healthca
Graduy (2010) %42
9 35 0
04
56 0 4 (2) Philippineoints is missin
cross countriand Japa
and Philippn after adjust
1
e Commissionfrom Cambodi
for nurses ovyment rate duseas employs like the Uniuation rate fASEAN cou
are related
uates % Annual Gro
-5.2%23.4%4.3% 1.8% 13.1%
20.9%
14.6%e Commissionin for Cambo
ies. Figure 9an. It can be pines has relating the estim
13
n on Higher ia is missing.
verseas was uring those yment and ited States, for nursing untries.
courses in
owth Rate% %
%
%
% n on Higher dia. Hence,
shows the noted that
atively low mates with
Figure 9. 2007
Source: AnParity convcountries.
V.
This sectihealthcare
Services thbe categorexamples face-to-facchanged th(1) local hinteraction
Average m
nalysis of rawversion factor
Prospects
ion attemptse.
a. Cross
hat move frorized under of traded hece transactiohis landscaphospital to fn (D2P).
monthly sala
w data on wagr from the Wo
s and implic
s to underst
s-border sup
om one counmode I. Tele
ealth serviceson between pe. Based on foreign hosp
ary of physi
ges from the Iorld Bank to a
ations of AE
tand the dif
pply (Mode I
try to anotheemedicine ans under this cpatients and the existing
pital interact
icians, nurs
Internal Laboadjust for stan
EC in the he
fferent mode
I)
er through tend healthcarcategory. Trahealth provi
g models, teletion (D2D) a
es and dent
or Organzationndard of living
ealth sector
es of trade
lecommunicre-related outaditionally, tider. Howeveemedicine caand (2) loca
ist, by selec
n. The authorg. No availab
in health s
ations and ptsourcing is he delivery oer, due to tecan occur throal patient to
cted countrie
r uses Purchable data for ot
services in r
postal infrastrthe two moof healthcarechnology, teough followiforeign hea
14
es in Asia,
asing Power ther ASEAN
relation to
ructure can st concrete e is often a lemedicine ing modes:
alth facility
15
In D2D, the most common type of telemedicine, local physicians contact foreign counterparts to refer patient’s case for further evaluation and diagnosis. In tele-radiology and tele-cardiology, the two most popular types of telemedicine, local physicians send laboratory image results then send them to specialist in other foreign specialty hospitals for clinical interpretation and diagnosis. In D2P, local patients contact directly foreign health facilities (sentinel) for clinical advice or guidance. Telemedicine is still in infancy as most existing models are in pilot or experimental stages. However, in more developed and integrated economic blocs, cross border telemedicine has been well utilized to address supply-side constraints to improve healthcare access. In the case of European telemedicine arrangements, the lack of specialized physicians in some countries like United Kingdom and Sweden (e.g. radiologist) prompted hospitals to outsource diagnostic services of other EU countries. Telemedicine has also improved cost-efficiency and waiting time of patients. Case studies in Spain and Sweden observed the following efficiency gains: (1) reduction of waiting time by 50-58% percent; (2) reduction in the cost of hiring new radiologic technologists; (3) reduction in the cost of services and (4) 85 percent of the Present Value of benefits went to patients (Cikowski, Lindskold , Malmqvist , & Billing , 2006). Table 12 shows selected examples of cross-border telemedicine models:
Table 12. Examples of telemedicine models in well-economically integrated economies
Sample models Remarks European Union telehealth models Hospitals in UK send radiology images to accredited
radiologists in Belgium. Hospitals in Sweden send radiology images to clinics in Spain, which re-sends the images to other radiology clinics in 14 EU countries.
Baltic eHealth Project The Baltic eHealth project involved a network of 200 hospitals from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Lithuania. Three hospitals from Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania used the network to establish a cross-border teleradiology service. X-ray images taken in Denmark were transmitted via a secure connection for reporting in Estonia and Lithuania
The Swinfen Charitable Trust established a telemedicine link in Bangladesh, between the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed in Dhaka and medical consultants abroad. This low-cost telemedicine system used a digital camera to capture still images, transmitted by email
How can cross-border telemedicine be used to augment the healthcare services? In ASEAN, one of the perennial problems that hinder healthcare access is the lack of health workers. The scarcity is also coupled with the misdistribution of health workers, as most of them are concentrated in highly urbanized areas leaving geographically isolated islands and poor areas unmanned. The poor working condition and
Local hospital
(refering hospital)
Foreign hospital
(referral hospital)
Patient
Local patient
Foreign health
facility
16
the lack of financial incentive have discouraged them to work in these areas. Given this condition, telemedicine can be used as one of the potential solutions to augment the supply-side. Most of existing telemedicine arrangements is utilized within local boundaries (e.g. Buddy Works of the Philippines) and few cross-border models but caters extra-regional clients (e.g. Teleradiology Solutions Inc. of India that caters clients in Singapore and US). There is no reported value or extent of usage of telemedicine is the region. There are several issues that impede the growth of cross-border telemedicine in the region. The lack of legal basis occurs as one of the major bottleneck. As of this writing, there is no regional framework and agreement that should clearly stipulates the acceptability, practice and regulatory issues with regard to telemedicine. The lack of such framework or agreement cannot clear the issues on professional certification and standards, accountability and region-wide accepted process and clinical practice guidelines (Lops, 2008).
b. Consumption abroad (Mode II)
In mode II, consumers travel to other countries to avail services. In the context of health services, medical tourism is one of the most concrete examples that fall under this category. Medical tourism is the actual consumption of health services by foreign patients. The industry has a long history. But not until recently, the growth became promising. In 2012, medical tourism was valued at USD10.5 billion and estimated to reach USD 32.5 billion in 2019 with at 18 annual growth rate (Transparency Market Research, 2013). Four countries in the ASEAN region are in the top destination of medical tourists (see figure 10). Thailand is on the top. The country attracts around 1.2 million medical tourists a year followed by Singapore, Malaysia and Philippines (see figure 10). The highly competitive medical tourism industry in the region is attributed to: following: (1) increasing healthcare cost in many developed countries; (2) changing demographic and epidemiologic patterns all over the globe and (3) increasing demand for aesthetic procedures and other personal healthcare services that are not covered by the typical insurance systems in developed countries (Picazo, O, 2013). As benchmark, table 10 shows the lower costs of countries with high inbound medical tourists (Philippines and Thailand) compared to US.
Source: Picazo (2013)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Figure 10. Number of medical tourist, 2010
17
Table 13. Comparing the prices of healthcare services
Philippines US ThailandDental bridge surgery 360-600 5,500 290-430
Lasik-eye 1000-1500 3000 650-900
Heart-bypass surgery 11,000-25,000 90,000-145,000 23,000-25,000
Noselift 400-1000 4000-12,000 600-2,500
Source: Picazo (2013) There are positive and negative impacts of medical tourism. Medical tourism provides additional revenues for the government from the large spending of medical tourists, which could be good in the domestic economy. The industry could also have spillover effects on other industries, particularly services sector such as transportation and accommodation (Lunt, Smith, Exworthy, Green, & Horsfall, 2011). Medical tourists have also higher demand, which could improve the overall healthcare quality in the country (Picazo, 2013; Ramirez de Arellano, 2011). However, one of the negative effects cited is the effect on medical inflation, which may have serious distributive consequences for domestic patients (WHO, 2009). Though cross-subsidization in the use of specialized machines may also occur to mitigate this potential problem (Singapore model) (Lunt et al, 2011).
c. Commercial presence (Mode III) In mode III, foreign companies acquire local companies in the form of portfolio investments, commercial loans or foreign direct investments. In the health sector, foreign companies usually invest in local hospitals/clinics. FDI in the healthcare sector is driven primarily by the growing demand for quality healthcare infrastructure because of increasing middle-class population and medical tourism. In the ASEAN region, data on the total value of foreign investments in hospitals is not readily available. However, there are noted investments of foreign companies in countries in the region (see table 11).
Table 14. Example of commercial presence of foreign firms in ASEAN
Country of Origin Investment
Vietnam V Intertnational and Viet-France International
(France), Fortis Healthcare Group (India),
Columbia Asia (Malaysia), Family Medical
Practice (Israel).
Philippines Bamrungrad (Thailand), Lombard (US)
Singapore Bamrungrad (Thailand)
Indonesia First Real Estate Investment Trust (Singapore),
Columbia (Malaysia)
Myanmar Metro Pacific Group (Philippines)
Malaysia Raffles (Singapore) Sarvamangla (2013) argued improvement in infrastructure, quality and standards as the positive effects of activities under mode III. In the case of Thailand and Philippines, to ensure that the quality of healthcare services is at par with other hospitals, many hospitals are now seeking international accreditation bodies. Spill over effects were also noted improvement in the supply of diagnostics and laboratory equipment (Sarvamangla, 2013; Smith, 2004). However, there are also negative effects, Increase in curative care instead of primary care utilization
might occthe healthpublic to f(Chanda, 2
In mode Itransient mproductionactive in tsending co In the AStransient m2000 to 2started to healthcare
Source
Table 15.
1995-2010
SingaporeSaudi AraOthers Source: Au One of thdomestic knowledg However, investmenwere gove
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
400,00
cur especiallyhcare cost if foreign-own2008).
d. Temp
IV, healthcarmigration in n of health ptransient migountry, while
SEAN regionmigrants. Fig2006, but the
limit the ne professiona
e: Author’s c
. Number o
0
e abia
uthor’s calcu
he positive efeconomy. Ine transfer ma
one of the nnt lost were nernment subs
-
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
1
Fi
y for FDI hinot properly
ned private fa
porary move
re professionhealth profe
professionalsgration of hee the latter as
n, the Philipgure 11 showe growth benumber of trals.
calculation of
of health w
1995 163
3,480 5,147
ulation of da
ffects of trann the Philippay occur in tr
noted negativnoticed in thsidized (Muu
995
igure 11. Num
Total OFW
ighly focusedy controlled.acilities, whi
ement (Mod
nals move to essionals is t in sending calth professis the receivin
ppines has thws the steady
came slowerransient mig
f data from P
workers mig
ta from Phili
nsient migratines, the totransient mig
ve effects is mhe migrationula, Panulo an
2000
mber of transi
Ws deployed
d on hospita. In some cich could ex
e IV)
foreign couthe higher wcounterpartsionals: Philipng country.
he biggest ngrowth in th
r then after. grants. Table
Philippine O
grating to
2000444
4,9743,609
ippine Overs
ation is the htal value of rgration (Bach
medical brainn of health wnd Maseko,
ient migrants
transient
al facilities. Fcases, many acerbate bra
untry to workwages in rece
. In the ASEppines and S
number of hehe number of
This was e 12 shows
verseas Emp
Singapore
72
seas Employm
high level ofremittance is
h, 2003; WHO
n drain (Robiworkers. The2006).
2006
in the Philipp
t health profession
Focus on curof the healt
in drain in th
k temporarilyeiving countrEAN region, ingapore. Th
ealthcare prof migrants. Mwhen the Uthe usual d
ployment Age
and Saudi
200686
7,1372,866ment Agency
f remittance, s 10 percent O, 2006)
inson, 2007)education o
2010
pines, 2010
nal migrants
urative care cth workers mthe public he
y. The mairies, and suronly two co
he former se
ofessionals wMigration is fUS and otherdestination o
ency
Arabia, Ph
2073
10,2,2
y
which is goof the GDP
). In Kenya aof most heal
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
18
could drive move from ealth sector
n driver of rplus in the ountries are erves as the
working as faster from r countries of Filipino
hilippines,
01036,208265
ood for the P. Skill and
and Malawi, th workers
0
0
19
VI. Barriers to free trade liberalization Notwithstanding the promises of deeper free trade liberalization under AEC, there are existing barriers that impedes free movement of services to materialize in the region. Among all the four modes, explicit policy barriers are seen in mode III (commercial presence) and mode IV (transient migrants). In general, government do not restrict telemedicine. Since this services are conducted electronically, it may be hard to impose limiations. While government usually do not restrict its citizens to seek medical care in other countries (Arunanondchai & Fink, 2007). For commercial presence, the explicit barriers identified include foreign equity limiations and need identification. Table 13 shows of the latest commitment of the 10 countries in easing the restrictions under mode III under AEC. It appears commitments varies across country. Countries like Lao, Vietnam, Cambodia and Philippines plan to be less restrictive, while countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia impose equity restrictions and need identification before foreign investments in hospitals are granted.
Table 16. Commitments under mode III
Country Mode 3
Hospital Clinic
Philippines Up to 100% foreign equity participation is allowed
Up to 100% foreign equity participation is allowed. Special services, 70 percent equity allowed.
Thailand Thailand may prescribe, in any area, numbers of hospital, or types of medical services to be provided in the hospital.
Foreign equity participation must not exceed 49 per cent of the registered capital. The number of foreign shareholders must be less than half of the total number of shareholders of the company
Malaysia Only through a locally incorporated joint-venture corporation with Malaysian individuals or Malaysian- controlled corporations or both and aggregate foreign shareholding in the joint-venture corporations shall not exceed 70 per cent
Cambodia No limitation except at least one director for technical matters must be Cambodian. For dental services, provision is permitted through a joint venture with Cambodian juridical persons
No limitation except at least one director for technical matters must be Cambodian. For dental services, provision is permitted through a joint venture with Cambodian juridical persons
Singapore Foreign equity ownership permitted up to 70 % Foreign equity ownership permitted up to 70 %
Lao Joint venture with Lao service suppliers is allowed for hospitals with more than 100 bed capacity. 100 percent equity is allowed.
Joint-venture with Lao services suppliers and foreign equity participation limited to 49%
Vietnam None None Myanmar For hospital services, joint venture with
Myanmar citizen or enterprise with 51% foreign equity is permitted. Foreign organizations and persons are not allowed to own land in Myanmar.
For hospital services, joint venture with Myanmar citizen or enterprise with 51% foreign equity is permitted. Foreign organizations and persons are not allowed to own land in Myanmar.
Indonesia For hospital services in East Indonesia region (except in Makasar and Manado) Joint venture with foreign equity is up to 70 percent. In Medan and Surabaya up to 51%.
Joint venture with foreign equity participation up to 70%, except in Makasar and Manado up to 51%
Brunei No stipulated limitation No stipulated limitation Source: ASEAN
20
For transient migration of health workers, the policy directions for each country also varies. The entry of foreign health workers in countries like Malaysia and Singapore is subject to economic or need test, while the Philippines and Indonesia totally restricted it. In Thailand, although the country allowed foreign health workers, there are other impediments such as language certification.
VII. Policy implications Given the general issues, there are some potential action points that can be pursued at the regional level:
Development of regional position on the practice, use and other issues related to telemedicine. As noted in the earlier section, there is no clear-cut guidelines or legal business tackling this mode. The region can study the EU model on telemedicine.
As echoed by Arunanondchai & Fink, the region can pursue activities that would imporove the the quality of health services thorugh medical training and knowledge exchange programs. Transfer of skills could also be promoted by region-wide training initiatives and the harmonization of course curricula.
Provide more empirical evidence on the effect of trade in the health services of the region using
different macro-economic techniques.
21
Bibliography Arunanondchai, J., & Fink, C. (2007). Trade in health services in the ASEAN region . Health Promotion International, 59-65. Asia Pacific Observatory. (2012). Malaysia Health Systems Review. Geneva: World Health Organization. Chanda, R. (2008). Foreign Investment in Hospitals in India: Status and Implications . Bangalore: World Health Organization. Cikowski, Z., Lindskold , L., Malmqvist , G., & Billing , H. (2006). Sollefteå and Borås hospitals; Sjunet, Sweden: radiology consultations between Sweden and Spain . Bonn. ERIA Research Institute Network. Addressing Inequality in East Asia through Regional Economic Integration . 2013: ERIA. Ezaki, M., & Nguyen, T. (2008). Regional Economic Integration and Its Impacts on Growth, Income Distribution and Poverty in East Asia: A CGE Analysis . 2008: Graduate School of International Development . Haseltine, W. (2012). Affordable Excellence: The SIngapore Health Story. Washington DC: Brookings Institute. Jeaneth, A., & Enciso, E. (2011). A comparative analysis between the relation of income distribution and economic regional integration in East Asia and Latin America. 107-127. Jurjus, A. (2013). hailand Health Care System: An Example of Universal Coverage. Human and Health. Lops, K. (2008). Cross-border telemedicine: Opportunities and barriers from an economic and legal perspective . Lunt, N., Smith, R., Exworthy, M., Green, S., & Horsfall, D. (2011). Medical Tourism: Treatments, Markets and Health System Implications: A scoping review . Paris: OECD. Mortensen, J. (2008). International Trade in Health Services Assessing the Trade and Trade-offs. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies. Picazo, O. (2013). Medical Tourism in the Philippines: Market Profile, Benchmarking Exercise, and S.W.O.T. Analysis. Makati: PIDS. Prina, S. (2007). Agricultural Trade Liberalization in Mexico: Impact on Border Prices and Farmers’ Income. Sarvamangla, R. (2013). An Analytical Study of Foreign Direct Investment in Indian Health care sectors. NDIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH , 16-17. Smith, R. (2004). Foreign direct investment and trade in health services: A review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 2013-2024. Tien, T., & Phuong, H. A Health Financing Review of Vietnam. 2011: WHO. Tovar, G. (2003). The Welfare Effects of Trade Liberalization in Colombia: Evidence from the Car Industry. Townsend, R., Gruber, J., & Hendren, N. (2013). The Great Equalizer: Health Care Access and Infant Mortality in Thailand. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics . Ulep, V. (2012). Inequities in Non-communicable Diseases. Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. United Nations Development Program. (2007). Regional integration and Human development: a pathway for africa . New York: UNDP. World Trade Organization. (1995). General Agreement on Trade in Services.