The Lao People's Democratic Republic health system review

Type Corporate Author
Title The Lao People's Democratic Republic health system review
Publication (Day/Month/Year) 2014
Publisher Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific
URL http://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/10448/9789290616481_eng.pdf
Abstract
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic is a landlocked country with a
population of 6.4 million, where the majority of the workforce is engaged
in agriculture. As a result of rapid economic growth, poverty reduction
has been impressive.The country was classified by the World Bank in 2011
as a lower-middle-income country, with a gross national income (GNI)
of US$ 1010 per capita. Between 1980 and 2010, life expectancy at birth
increased by 18 years, from 49 to 67. The proportion of the population
living below the national poverty line fell from 45% in 1992 to 27.6% in
2008.
However, inequalities in income distribution have become prominent.
Poverty remains high, particularly in remote and highland areas where
access by road or river is difficult, and rural areas continue to have
poor access to sanitation and electricity. Despite data limitations, it is
evident that infectious diseases still account for a significant proportion
of disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs). Both communicable and
noncommunicable diseases are major causes of mortality and morbidity;
the prevalence of tuberculosis, malaria and dengue, although there has
been some significant success with malaria control over the last decade.
The high rate of traffic accidents are of particular concern. Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) 4, 5 and 6 are on track to be achieved by 2015.
Net official development assistance to the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic was 17% of GNI in 1990 and had decreased to 6.2% in 2010,
challenging the country’s historical reliance on ODA. Fiscal space is
favourable and the national budget deficit has declined. Government
revenue (excluding grants) has increased from 12.2% of GDP in 2006 to
14.4% in 2010. While this is not high compared with international peers, it
does give more room for government investment in health.

Related studies

»