Health care utilisation under the 30-Baht Scheme among the urban poor in Mitrapap slum, Khon Kaen, Thailand: a cross-sectional study

Background: In 2001, the Government of Thailand introduced a universal coverage scheme with the aim of ensuring equitable health care access for even the poorest citizens. For a flat user fee of 30 Baht per consultation, or for free for those falling into exemption categories, every scheme participant may access registered health services. The exemption categories include children under 12 years of age, senior citizens aged 60 years and over, the very poor, and volunteer health workers. The functioning of these exemption mechanisms and the effect of the scheme on health service utilisation among the poor is controversial. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated the prevalence of 30-Baht Scheme registration and subsequent self-reported health service utilisation among an urban poor population in the Teparuk community within the Mitrapap slum in Khon Kaen city, northeastern Thailand. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the exemption mechanisms in reaching the very poor and the elderly was examined. Factors for users' choice of health facilities were identified. Results: Overall, the proportion of the Teparuk community enrolled with the 30-Baht Scheme was high at 86%, with over one quarter of these exempted from paying the consultation fee. User fee exemption was significantly more frequent among households with an above-poverty-line income (64.7%) compared to those below the poverty line (35.3%), χ2 (df) = 5.251 (1); p-value = 0.018. In addition, one third of respondents over 60 years of age were found to be still paying user fees. Self-reported use of registered medical facilities in case of illness was stated to be predominantly due to the service being available through the scheme, with service quality not a chief consideration. Overall consumer satisfaction was high, especially among those not required to pay the 30 Baht user fee. Conclusion: Whilst the 30-Baht Scheme seems to cover most of the poor population of Mitrapap slum in Khon Kaen, the user fee exemption mechanism only works partially with regard to reaching the poorest and exempting senior citizens. Service utilisation and satisfaction are highest amongst those who are fee-exempt. Service quality was not an important factor influencing choice of health facility. Ways should be sought to improve the effectiveness of the current exemption mechanisms.Sophie Coronini-Cronberg, Wongsa Laohasiriwong and Christian A Gerick

Multi-minicore Disease

Multi-minicore Disease (MmD) is a recessively inherited neuromuscular disorder characterized by multiple cores on muscle biopsy and clinical features of a congenital myopathy. Prevalence is unknown. Marked clinical variability corresponds to genetic heterogeneity: the most instantly recognizable classic phenotype characterized by spinal rigidity, early scoliosis and respiratory impairment is due to recessive mutations in the selenoprotein N (SEPN1) gene, whereas recessive mutations in the skeletal muscle ryanodine receptor (RYR1) gene have been associated with a wider range of clinical features comprising external ophthalmoplegia, distal weakness and wasting or predominant hip girdle involvement resembling central core disease (CCD). In the latter forms, there may also be a histopathologic continuum with CCD due to dominant RYR1 mutations, reflecting the common genetic background. Pathogenetic mechanisms of RYR1-related MmD are currently not well understood, but likely to involve altered excitability and/or changes in calcium homeoestasis; calcium-binding motifs within the selenoprotein N protein also suggest a possible role in calcium handling. The diagnosis of MmD is based on the presence of suggestive clinical features and multiple cores on muscle biopsy; muscle MRI may aid genetic testing as patterns of selective muscle involvement are distinct depending on the genetic background. Mutational analysis of the RYR1 or the SEPN1 gene may provide genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Management is mainly supportive and has to address the risk of marked respiratory impairment in SEPN1-related MmD and the possibility of malignant hyperthermia susceptibility in RYR1-related forms. In the majority of patients, weakness is static or only slowly progressive, with the degree of respiratory impairment being the most important prognostic factor