Health financing reform in Bulgaria has been characterised by lack of political consensus on reform direction, economic shocks, and, since 1998, steps towards social insurance. As in other eastern European countries, the reform has been driven by an imperative to embrace new ideas modelled on systems elsewhere, but with little attention to whether these reflect popular values. This study explores underlying values, such as views on the role of the state and solidarity, attitudes to, and understanding of compulsory and voluntary insurance, and co-payments. The study identifies general principles (equity, transparency) considered important by the population and practical aspects of implementation of reform. Data were obtained from a representative survey (n = 1547) and from 58 in-depth interviews and 6 focus groups with users and health professionals, conducted in 1997 before the actual reform of the health financing system in Bulgaria. A majority supports significant state involvement in health care financing, ranging from providing safety net for the poor, through co-subsidising or regulating the social insurance system, to providing state-financed universal free care (half of all respondents). Collectivist values in Bulgaria remain strong, with support for free access to services regardless of income, age, or health status and progressive funding. There is strong support (especially among the well off) for a social insurance system based on the principle of solidarity and accountability rather than the former tax-based model. The preferred health insurance fund was autonomous, state regulated, financing only health care, and offering optional membership. Voluntary insurance and, less so, co-payments were acceptable if limited to selected services and better off groups. In conclusion, a health financing system under public control that fits well with values and population preferences is likely to improve compliance and be more sustainable. Universal health insurance appears to attract most support, but a broader public debate involving less empowered people is needed to resolve misunderstandings and create realistic expectations. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
