The UHC in discrete countries is different due to many factors including social, political and economics.
In Thailand, UHC covering more than 99% of the population is regulated by public organizations. Before UHC implementation, people seldom receive the treatment in the public hospital according to high health expenses. Therefore, health in the general population did not meet the world standard. After implementation, people can easily receive healthcare services from public hospitals without additional spending. They only pay for taxes or social security to afford these services. The three organizations (CSMBS, SSS, UCS) will directly allocate financial support to hospitals. Lowering health expenses and improving health in Thailand’s population are the major benefits of UHC. In contrast, it increases healthcare providers and hospital financial burdens. To solve these problems, the government should increase the healthcare workforce and its incentives, appropriately allocate financial support and improving health prevention more than health treatment.
In other countries such as the US, health insurance providers are the main health coverage system. Due to the high cost of medical insurances, low-income people cannot afford it and maybe bankrupt. Only high-income people can afford these treatments. Equity in healthcare services is the main issue to discuss in the US healthcare system. The US government cannot regulate medical pricing due to its capitalism. In addition, increasing healthcare prosecution from malpractice make HCP to do the best practice in healthcare for preventing these problems, resulting in the most expensive medical care countries. So, there are different problems of UHC in different settings to suitably resolve according to their social and economic environment.