DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted in Rui Li City and Tenchong County in Yunnan Province, China (n=23) and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (n=44), along with review of policy documents. Data were thematically analysed.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants were migrant workers and key stakeholders with expertise in migrant issues including representatives from international organisations, local civil society organisations, government agencies, medical professionals, academia and trade unions.
RESULTS: Migrant health policies at destination countries were predominantly protectionist, concerned with preventing transmission of communicable disease and the excessive burden on health systems. In China, foreign wives were entitled to state-provided maternal health services while female migrant workers had to pay out-of-pocket and often returned to Myanmar for deliveries. In Malaysia, immigration policies prohibit migrant workers from pregnancy, however, women do deliver at healthcare facilities. Mandatory HIV testing was imposed on migrants in both countries, where it was unclear whether and how informed consent was obtained from migrants. Migrants who did not pass mandatory health screenings in Malaysia would runaway rather than be deported and become undocumented in the process. Excessive attention on migrant workers with communicable disease control campaigns in China resulted in inadvertent stigmatisation. Language and financial barriers frustrated access to care in both countries. Reported conditions of overcrowding and inadequate healthcare access at immigration detention centres raise public health concern.
CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings inform suggestions to mainstream the protection of migrant workers' health within national health policies in two middle-income destination countries, to ensure that health systems are responsive to migrants' needs as well as to strengthen bilateral and regional cooperation towards ensuring better migration management.
METHODS: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China.
RESULTS: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs.