Access to health care and financial protection for migrants can be promoted through diverse health insurance schemes, designed to suit migrants’ needs within a specific context. The Migrant Fund (M-Fund) is a voluntary, non-profit health insurance scheme operating along the Thai–Myanmar border in Thailand since 2017 and aims to protect the health of migrants uncovered by existing government insurance schemes. A qualitative evaluation was conducted between December 2018 and March 2019 to determine M-Fund’s operational impacts, provide recommendations for improvement, and draw suggestions about its role in protecting migrant health. In-depth interviews with 20 individuals and 5 groups were conducted in three categories: (1) International, national, and local partners; (2) M-Fund clients; and (3) M-Fund staff. Interview information was triangulated with findings from other informants, a document review, and researchers’ observations. Despite covering a small number of 9131 migrants, the M-Fund has contributed to improving access to care for migrants, raised awareness about migrant health protection, and reduced the financial burden for public hospitals. The M-Fund acts as a safety-net initiative for those left behind due to unclear government policy to protect the health of undocumented/illegal migrants. Despite clear merits, the issue of adverse selection to the scheme is a critical challenge. Evidence from this evaluation is useful to inform the future design of government insurance schemes for migrants.

Thailand is a popular host nation for international migrant workers, particularly those from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar. Thailand has introduced approaches to protect their rights for health and social welfare, using various mechanisms over many years. However, the implementation of these policies is dynamic and has been influenced by national security, economic necessity, and public health concerns. The aim of this study was to explore how Thailand designs and implements health and social welfare policies for migrants in Thailand, both before and during COVID-19. A qualitative analysis was used alongside interviews with 18 key informants in various sectors in this field. Thematic coding was applied. Results show that there were seven key themes emerging from the analysis, including: (i) sustainability of the HICS; (ii) people dropping out from the Social Security Scheme (SSS); (iii) quality of health screening in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) migrants; (iv) health screening problems and state quarantine management in response to COVID-19; (v) managing the migration quota and dependency on migrant workers; (vi) influx of migrants in the backdrop of COVID-19; and (vii) poor living conditions of migrants and the impact of COVID-19. The majority of interviewees agreed that undocumented migrants is a critical concern that impedes access to migrants’ health and social welfare. This situation was especially pronounced during the second wave of COVID-19 in Thailand, which took hold in migrant communities. In the short term, the poor living conditions of migrants urgently need to be addressed in order to contain and mitigate this crisis. In the long term, there needs to be an improved health system design that includes migrants, regardless of their immigration status. This requires intersectoral policy coherence, including the hastening of nationality verification to sustainably mitigate undocumented migrants.

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has threatened health and well-being in all populations. This impact is also deepening structural inequalities for migrant workers in Thailand. Due to their vulnerability and limited opportunity to access health services, they have greater risks in many health aspects compared to other populations. This qualitative study sought to examine the key health concerns and barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare access among migrant workers in Thailand through the lens of policymakers, healthcare professionals, experts on migrant health, and migrant workers. We conducted 17 semi-structured in-depth interviews of stakeholders from health and non-health sectors in Thailand from July to October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using both deductive and inductive thematic approaches. Thematic coding was applied. The results showed that financial constraints were a major barrier for healthcare access among migrant workers. These included affordability of healthcare and difficulty accessing funds (migrant health insurance). Structural barriers included some health facilities opening for emergency cases only. Insufficient healthcare resources were profound during the peak of positive cases. Cognitive barriers included negative attitudes and diverse understanding of healthcare rights. Language and communication barriers, and a lack of information also played an important role. Conclusion, our study highlights healthcare access barriers to migrant workers in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for future resolution of these barriers were also proposed.

Thailand has become a popular destination for international migrant workers, particularly from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar. However, only a fraction of these migrant workers were insured by public health insurance. The objective of this study was to apply systems thinking to explore contextual factors affecting access to public health insurance among cross-border migrants in Thailand. A group model building approach was applied. Participants (n = 20) were encouraged to share ideas about underlying drivers and barriers of migrants’ access to health insurance. The causal loop diagram and stock and flow diagram were synthesised to identify the dynamics of access to migrant health insurance. Results showed that nationality verification is an important mechanism to deal with the precarious citizenship status of undocumented migrants. However, some migrants are still left uninsured. The likely explanations are the semi-voluntary nature of the Health Insurance Card Scheme, administrative delay of the enrollment process, and resistance of some employers to hiring migrants. As a result, findings suggest that effective communication is required to raise acceptance towards insurance among migrants and their employers. A participatory public policy process is needed to create a good balance of migrant policies among diverse authorities.

Migrant health workers (MHWs) and migrant health volunteers (MHVs) are key health workforce actors who play a substantial role in improving the health of migrants in Thailand. The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with health literacy in MHWs and MHVs in Thailand. A self-administered questionnaire was conducted from December 2018 to April 2019 in two migrant-populated provinces. A total of 40 MHWs, 78 MHVs, and 116 general migrants were included in the survey. Results showed that a higher education level was associated with a greater health literacy score. MHWs were more likely to have a higher health literacy score (5.59 points difference) than general migrants. The province per se and type of affiliations did not significantly contribute to the difference in the health literacy score of each individual. Most MHWs received health information from health professionals, health staff, and the internet, while MHVs and general migrants received information from health professionals, MHWs/MHVs, family/friends, and posters/leaflets. This study suggests that a higher education level should be used as a criterion for recruitment of MHWs and MHVs. Access to interactive health information like health professionals should be promoted as the main source of information to ensure better health literacy among MHWs and MHVs.

Although physicians in Thailand can carry out abortions legally, unsafe abortion rates remain high and have serious consequences for women’s health. Training programs for healthcare providers on the ‘Care of unplanned and adolescent pregnancies for the prevention of unsafe abortions’ have been implemented in Thailand with the aim of providing information and challenging negative attitudes about abortions. This study investigated the participants of the training courses in order to: (i) evaluate their knowledge and attitudes towards safe abortions; and (ii) investigate the factors that determine their knowledge and attitudes. A pre-post study design was applied. Descriptive statistics were calculated to provide an overview of the data. Bivariate analysis, a Wilcoxon signed rank test and a multivariable analysis using multiple linear regression were applied to determine the changes in attitudes and assess the likelihood of behaviour change towards adolescents and women experiencing unplanned pregnancy and abortions, according to demographic and professional characteristics. Having had the training, healthcare providers’ change in attitudes towards adolescents and women experiencing unplanned pregnancies and abortions were found to be 0.67 points for the nine responses of attitudes and 0.79 points for the 14 responses on various abortion scenarios. Changes in attitude were significantly different among the varying health professional types, with non-doctors increasing by 0.53 points, non-obstetricians and non-gynaecologists increasing by 0.46 points and obstetricians and gynaecologists (OBGYN) increasing by 0.32 points. Positive attitudes towards unplanned pregnancies and unsafe abortions and attitudes towards abortion scenarios significantly increased. The career type of the health professional was a significant factor in improving attitudes. The training program was more effective among non-doctor healthcare providers. Therefore, non-doctors could be the target population for training in the future.