Health systems’ insurance/funding can be organised in several ways. Some countries have adopted systems with a mixture of public–private involvement (e.g. Australia, Chile, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand) which creates two-tier health systems, allowing consumers (groups) to have preferential access to the basic standard of care (e.g. skipping waiting times). The degree to which efficiency and equity are achieved in these types of systems is questioned. In this paper, we consider integration of the two tiers by means of a managed competition model, which underpins Social Health Insurance (SHI) systems. We elaborate a two-part conceptual framework, where, first, we review and update the existing pre-requisites for the model of managed competition to fit a broader definition of health systems, and second, we typologise possible roadmaps to achieve that model in terms of the insurance function, and focus on the consequences on providers and governance/stewardship.

“Comprehensive Healthcare for America” is a largely single-payer reform proposal that, by applying the insights of behavioral economics, may be able to rally patients and clinicians sufficiently to overcome the opposition of politicians and vested interests to providing all Americans with less complicated and less costly access to needed healthcare.

What explains the passage of Thailand's landmark universal healthcare (UHC) policy? In separate contributions, Selway and Harris emphasized the role of electoral rules and political parties, on one hand, and “professional movements” of developmentally minded state bureaucrats on the other. Which is correct? In this article, Selway and Harris respond to each other's work. While Selway agrees that the actions of the professional movement constitute an underappreciated necessary condition for universal healthcare in Thailand, he argues that Harris overstates the role of the movement in implementation. Harris defends his position and maintains that an institution-focused account is insufficient, arguing that the actions of Thailand's Rural Doctors’ Movement not only explain universal healthcare but also gave rise to the very electoral rule changes that Selway argues were so critical to facilitating universal coverage. Selway responds to these criticisms, and the two researchers jointly consider implications for causation, qualitative research, and policymaking theory.