Page 146 - 20211214_OHKF_Health_Finance_Research_Report_E (1)

Box 4.4

Rationale of measuring willingness-to-pay (WTP) of
prospective participants of the Scheme

While the Scheme intends to fully subsidise the cost of screening for all
eligible patients, chronic disease management could incur costs through
co-payment by scheme subscribers. Currently, a follow-up consultation for
chronic disease patients with stable conditions at the Hospital Authority (HA)
General Out-patient Clinics (GOPCs) costs HKD 50. In comparison, the
private sector does not currently offer sufficient price transparency nor
standardised price points across all providers. As such, estimating
prospective users’ WTP for each consultation to manage
chronic conditions is imperative in designing a voucher
scheme that encourages public uptake. While we acknowledge
that assessing the maximum WTP per respondent may be insufficient in
capturing the affordability of pricing, especially given that willingness may
not equate to financial capacity, a WTP range will help voucher designers
and policymakers best structure payment schemes.

4.2.2 FACTORING IN ACCESSIBILITY AS A KEY
CONSIDERATION TO ENGAGE IN REGULAR
SCREENING AND MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC
CONDITIONS

Ever more presently, health system sustainability is being threatened by rising demand and
disproportionate resource allocation. In Chapter 1, we discussed that health financing
systems have set universal health coverage (UHC) as a main policy priority. In parallel,
universal access, which encompasses physical accessibility, financial affordability, and
acceptability, must also exist to facilitate progress towards UHC (Evans et al., 2013).
We believe that the Scheme will be successful if implemented with the
necessary factors for universal access, and ultimately UHC, in mind.

“Universal access”, as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), is comprised of
three interlinked dimensions (Figure 4.1):

• Physical accessibility, which relates to the availability of quality health services within
reach of individuals in relation to service organisation and delivery;
• Financial affordability, which is based upon an individual’s ability to afford services,
including both direct and indirect costs to patients;
• Acceptability, which captures individuals’ willingness to seek and receive services
(Evans et al., 2013).

144