20102012

2013 .
,
2010 , -

,

, -

2 2013


- , .
, .).

,
- , , , - .
,
-
- . , , , ,
- .
.
1 2012 - (77,8%) (. 1).

.



. 
.




. 1.
,
, ,

, - , - (.
, - ,
1- () - .). (-
1-) - 18,9%.

, . , - 75,6%
(2010 . 69,8%) (. 2).
8 2012 . 165 , 2012 .
,
- ,
(, 2012 ., - , , .),
2012 . -
28066543,0 . (3353347,1 . . ()
- .
2012 .),
5,3% . 2010 . , 20112012.
- 3 , - , 2011 . : - (- -

2 2013














 
 

 


















. 2.

,

, .
, ,
, , .,

( 1 8%).
81,1%.
,
(. 3).
,
,

1,3% 2010 . 1,1%
2012 . ( ) 21,6%, 2010 .
5,3% (2010 . 22,7%) (. 1).

(. 4) 85,3%,
18,5% .
2012. 6,7% 2010.,

.

. , 74,9% (2010 . 70,6%).
, ,
, , 2010-2011 .





















. 3.

2 2013












. 4.

2010 .
18,4%
, - . , , ( )
, .


,
2010 .
29,2% 3,1% (2010 . 2,4%).
, ,
.
13,3% (. 4).
(93,8%)


(, , , .).
, ,
.

( 0,8%
2010 . 1,2% 2012 .), .
-

, .
, , , 0,4%, 6,2% .
, , , . ,

1 .
(0,6% , . 1).
2012 .
, :
,
,
, , ,
,
,
, (93,7%).

60,9% , 9,3% ,
2010. , , ,
, ,
(. 1).
, , 2012 . 32,0%.


58,5% 2010 .
, , 63,5% (2010 . 59,8%) (. 5).

(94,6%). 5,0%, -

2 2013


  







 

 



 











 





















 































































 


 
 














 

 




  












 























. 5.

(92,7%). , , , ,
. ,
, 0,4%. (65,4%) -
(33,2%) .
54,2% 34,4%
(. 6).
2010.,
( 8,6% 3,1%
). ,
, ,
-

2 2013


 








. 6.

- .

(
) 44,1% 28,0%
(2010 . 23,6%).
2010 ., , - , 18,6%.
89,6%
, 10,3%
0,1%
. 93,4%.

, ,
.

22,4%
(2010. 17,9%), 80,1% .
,
- .
-

, -
. , ,
, .

10

2005 .,
9,2 1 . 11,4 2010 . 12,2 2012 .
,
, - ,
, .
2006 .
, 500
1000 . 70%.

. (
1 . ) 12,4
1997 . 4,0 2010 . 3,4 2012 .
, ,

.
, .
. 2000
100 . , , 21,3 , 2012 0,9.
,

.

4,7%
(98,3%).
3,2% (2010 . 3,4%). , ,
, 80,0% 2,5%
(2010 . 2,9%).
( ,
..)
18,8% 0,6% (2010 . 0,5%).

.
(1,2%) -

2 2013



(94,1%).

(98,4%, . 7). , (0,4%),
, , , . (1,1%)
.
, ,
, . .
1,8% (2010 . 2,1%). 81,5% 1,5%
(2010 .
1,8%).
( ,
,
..) 15,4% 0,3%
(2010 . 0,3%).
(3,2%)
(84,4%). ,
2010 . , , : 0,01% -

2010 . 0,06%
2012 .,
.
(92,0%, . 8). 7,8% , . ,
(0,2%),
-,
, , .

.

2012 .
2011 . 3,9% ( 41,2 39,6 100
. ). 12,8% ( 2012 644 . (6,8 100 .), 2011 . 737 (7,8
100 .).
,
, , .

. , .
,
0,5% (2010 . 0,5%).
52,5% 0,2% -


































. 7.
2012 .

. 8.
2012 .

2 2013

11

(2010 . 0,3%),
47,5% 0,2% (2010 . 0,2%).
, ,

(86,2%),
(13,8%) (. 9).
()
. 2,0%
(2010 .
2,3%). 93,0% 1,8% (2010 . 1,9%). ( ,
..) 32,4% 0,1%
(2010 . 0,4%).
, ,
(98,2%, . 10).
2012 . 6,0%,
18,5%,
4,3%,
.
1,6%
(2010 . 1,7%)
85,8%.










. 9.
2012 .

12










. 10.

2012 .

0,8% (2010 . 0,5%). 2012 .
(21,6%).
. ,
, 1,6% (2010 . 1,9%).

(50,0%), (42,9%)
( (55,1%), (44,6%), (0,3%))
(7,1%).
,
, , .
- , :
; ;
, , .,
.

2 2013


,
() , ,
. ,
2012 . ,

,
, .
OVERALL RESULTS OF THE WORK AS
REGARDS THE PREPARATION OF THE
SECOND COUNTRY REPORT ON NATIONAL
HEALTH ACCOUNTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF
BELARUS
V.I.Zharko, Minister of Health of the Republic
of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus

ANALYSIS OF HEALTH CARE ACTIVITIES

OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS FOR 2010
2012 IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM ON NATIONAL HEALTH ACCOUNTS
E.I.Tkacheva, Head, Board on Health Care
Planning and Economy of the Ministry of Health of
the Republic of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus
It has been emphasized that National Health
Accounts (NHA) are a tool allowing impartial
managerial decision-making based on complete and
reliable information. Outcomes of the work carried
out in the Republic of Belarus as regards the
preparation of the second country report on NHA
for 2012 have been presented. It has been
concluded that the state assumes the main burden
in protecting citizens from the excessive burden
of expenditure on maladies treatment averting the
poverty of the population, caused by expenditure
on medical care.
07.05.2013 .

2 2013

13