Citizen networks from 18 provinces call for a review of the proposed change in ThaiHealth funding sources, expressing concern about impacts on vulnerable groups and emphasizing the need to amend laws to enhance transparency and governance rather than cut funding sources. They urge legal reforms to raise transparency standards and protect vulnerable populations' interests in health promotion funding.
Statement from the One Plan Plus Network of 18 provinces opposing the draft ThaiHealth Fund Act (No. ..) B.E. .... concerning the proposed repeal of the 2% surcharge from alcohol and tobacco taxes as fund maintenance fees.
The Secretariat of the House of Representatives has invited public comments on the draft ThaiHealth Fund Act (No. ..) B.E. .... proposed by Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul and colleagues, through the parliamentary feedback system from 30 September to 14 October 2026.
The key point of the draft is to repeal provisions in Sections 11 to 15 of the ThaiHealth Fund Act B.E. 2544, which impose a 2% surcharge on alcohol and tobacco taxes, and instead allocate funding through the annual government budget. The rationale cited is compliance with fiscal discipline under Section 26 of the State Fiscal Discipline Act B.E. 2561.
The One Plan Plus Network of 18 provinces, a civil society coalition working alongside government agencies, local administrative organizations, and academic institutions to advance strategic health and welfare issues for vulnerable groups in provincial development planning, has thoroughly reviewed the draft law and its potential impacts.
The network collectively believes this draft law is not merely a budgetary management adjustment but will severely disrupt the country's health promotion mechanisms. Their empirical concerns are outlined as follows.
1) Reducing civil society's capacity at a critical juncture during the formulation of the provincial development plans for 2028–2032.
Currently, all provinces nationwide are preparing their provincial and cluster development plans for fiscal years 2028–2032. The Policy Committee on Integrated Area-Based Management (PCA) at its first meeting of 2026 on 23 April emphasized the importance of participation from all sectors. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Interior has mandated all provinces to survey public opinions, including vulnerable groups, and ensure civil society representatives participate in consultative meetings, in line with the Integrated Area-Based Management Decree B.E. 2565.
However, in practice, vulnerable groups can only meaningfully voice their concerns and participate if civil society mechanisms exist to conduct field data collection, organize listening forums, and synthesize community needs into policy and project proposals incorporated into development plans. These provincial-level missions rely primarily on ThaiHealth Fund support.
Since provincial government budgets are designed mainly to allocate funds to government agencies for project implementation, they do not readily allow direct funding to civil society for this role. If ThaiHealth Fund resources are disrupted or cut off,
the PCA resolutions and Ministry of Interior directives will become mere formalities, making provincial and cluster development plans — which set budget priorities until 2032 — lack genuine proposals reflecting the problems and needs of vulnerable groups.
2) The repeal of the fund maintenance fee is a policy choice, not a legal correction.
The use of Section 26 of the State Fiscal Discipline Act B.E. 2561 as the main justification for repealing the fund maintenance fee is an incomplete interpretation. Section 82 of the same act explicitly states that Section 26 does not apply retroactively to existing laws. Thus, the ThaiHealth Fund remains fully legal and legitimate.
Moreover, the maintenance fee is based on the international principle that those causing harm bear responsibility, levying charges on producers of products detrimental to societal health. The proposal to abolish this fiscal mechanism is a political policy choice requiring comprehensive impact assessment, not solely a fiscal discipline justification.
3) Relying on the annual budget process cannot guarantee continuity in health promotion work.
Shifting ThaiHealth Fund reliance to the annual budget will subject health promotion and risk reduction tasks to annual budget cycles, competing with other urgent short-term priorities. Health promotion, behavioral change, and area-based agendas are long-term strategic efforts requiring continuity beyond political cycles and flexibility to respond to emerging issues.
Establishing a dedicated revenue source (Earmarked Tax) is fundamental to the fund's original purpose, ensuring institutional stability and sustained program implementation.
4) Governance oversight should be separated from budget source reductions.
All public funds must operate under transparency, accountability, and rigorous scrutiny. If policymakers have governance or efficiency concerns, these should be addressed by strengthening oversight, auditing, and public disclosure mechanisms, not by dismantling funding mechanisms or cutting budgets, which would harm public benefits and health rights widely.
One Plan Plus Network's demands:
1. Urge the bill proponents to review and withdraw the draft ThaiHealth Fund Act (No. ..) B.E. .... from the legislative process to prevent negative impacts on the health system and civil society participation nationwide.
2. Request a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment under Section 77 of the Constitution, especially on vulnerable groups’ participation in the 2028–2032 provincial development plans, and cumulative impacts from simultaneous draft laws aiming to repeal maintenance fees from alcohol and tobacco taxes affecting public media organizations (ThaiPBS), the elderly fund, and the national sports development fund.
3. Promote strengthening governance and budget oversight mechanisms instead of cutting funding sources. If operational challenges exist, administrative and subordinate legal measures should be used to improve transparency without undermining the funding structure for societal health.
4. Invite civil society partners, community organizations, academics, and all citizens to submit opposition comments on the draft act via the parliamentary feedback system (parliament.go.th/section77) by 14 October 2026, to jointly protect health rights and public participation.