Haiti announced in 2018 its aim to achieve universal health coverage. In this paper, we discuss what this objective means for the country and what next steps should be taken. To contextualize the notion, we framed Haiti en route to the 2030 goal and analyzed qualitatively the status quo in terms of geographic, financial, and service access. For each dimension, we focused on the context, the government's policies and political agendas, their implementation progress, and key influential factors. Our analysis found little progress and numerous challenges. Geographic access was limited due principally to the insufficient number of facilities, difficulties in reaching health facilities, and local customs. Financial coverage was low because of the government's insufficient budgets, inefficient budget allocation, and ineffective management. Service access also had room for significant improvement for a lack of basic infrastructure and resources, gaps between the essential service package guidelines, health professionals' skills, and the needs, as well as deficiencies in people-centered care. These factors affected not only health service coverage but also its quality. We found that the root causes of these issues were composed of unstable financing mechanisms, opportunistic resource allocation, and ineffective management control systems. We suggest that to overcome these issues and achieve universal health coverage with decent service quality, Haiti's health system needs to be reformed by implementing strategic financing, decentralized management systems, and community engagement in primary health care.
Sharing medical data with numerous stakeholders for varied purposes is a perplexing problem facing healthcare systems throughout the world. All this needs to be done, whilst ensuring patient and health data privacy and data integrity. Through this paper, an attempt has been made to present a novel distributed digital health record management system. The blockchain framework has been built using the tools provided by hyper ledger, an open source project. This system empowers patients with a comprehensive, secure, immutable, and easily accessible digital record of their health. Also, this information is available across multiple practitioners and healthcare providers throughout the world. This system can therefore empower the emergence of health data economics, empowering researchers with the health data and giving patients an opportunity to share their health data without losing anonymity. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a prototype of a health data management system utilising blockchain.
ABSTRACT For the last three decades, healthcare systems have been under pressure to adapt to a neoliberal world and incorporate market principles. The introduction of market-based instruments, increasing competition among health care providers, introducing publicly -funded private sector provisioning of healthcare through health insurance financing systems to replace public provisioning of health care, promoting individual responsibility for health and finally, the introduction of market relations through privatization, deregulation and decentralization of health care have been some common elements seen globally. These reforms, undertaken under the guise of increasing efficiency and quality through competition and choice, have in fact harmed the physical, emotional and mental health of communities around the world and also contributed to a significant rise in inequities in health and healthcare access. They have weakened the public healthcare systems of countries and led to commercialization of healthcare. This article presents three case studies of resistance, to the commercialization of health care, by the People’s Health Movement (PHM) and associated networks. It aims to contribute to the understanding of the way neoliberal reforms, including those imposed under structural adjustment programmes and some promoted under the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) paradigm, have impacted country-level health systems and access of people to health care, and bring out lessons from the resistance against these reforms.
Health indicators have been gradually improving in India, but health for all is yet to be achieved. The life expectancy is 68.7 years, infant mortality rate is 33/1000 live births, maternal mortality ratio is 130/100,000 live births, and total fertility rate is 2.3 children/woman; however, large inequities by geography, gender, class, caste, religion, and region are seen.[1] Health of the Nation's States Report[2] indicates that despite rising income, poverty and hidden hunger still exist; environmental pollution has increased, more so, in urban areas; sanitation services and clean fuel use have not yet improved to the desired level, especially in the villages. In urban areas, slums have mushroomed, built area has increased, and open spaces have shrunk. Moreover, dietary patterns have changed in favor of more sugar, salt, fat, and alcohol, whereas consumption of vegetables and fruits has declined. Mechanization, especially motorized transport, has encouraged sedentary life styles and a rise in road traffic injuries is noticed. The gap between aspirations and real-life situations has pushed many into addictions and mental health problems. To address these issues, multisectoral public health actions are needed, in addition to the reorientation of health sector. In the last decade, the implementation of the National Health Mission (NHM) did bring back some focus on social determinants of health and encouraged development of a health system based on primary health care.[3] Investments in health system led to improvement in health services. It had an impact on health indicators, but the full potential of NHM is yet to be realized.[4] The recently announced Ayushman Bharat Mission (ABM) has started insurance coverage for selected package of medical and surgical procedures for hospitalized patients belonging to socioeconomically vulnerable families on the lines of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna though the insurance amount is larger.[5] The development of subcenters into health and wellness centers continues to be under the NHM. These two missions, i.e., NHM and ABM, deal with primary and secondary care, respectively. In the absence of a linkage between these two missions, it may not be possible to maintain a balance. Therefore, the funds earmarked for ABM should flow through the primary health-care system on per capita basis. The primary health-care providers should be empowered to decide which patient to refer, to which hospital (public or private), and at what cost to pay, so that ultimately health services are cashless for the patient. Coordinated actions are required not only within the health and family welfare ministry, but across multiple sectors. Hence, to operationalize multisectoral public health action in a decentralized manner, every village or urban ward should have Arogya Kendra (health center) financed by the state through a village or ward fund, but managed by local volunteers under the guidance of the community it serves, and it should have a decentralized Integrated Health Information System for Universal Health Care supported by Information Communication Technology (ICT), if possible. Devolution of funds to district health societies and decentralization of planning, implementation, and monitoring would build a sustainable system rooted in local sociocultural contexts, which will be able to harness the locally available resources. However, broad policy framework, guidelines, and oversight can remain at the central and state level. Primary health-care teams should be incentivized to invest in prevention and health promotion, so that health literacy improves and spending on illness care can be reduced. Therefore, NHM and ABM should advocate for a comprehensive public health-oriented “whole-of-government” intersectoral health promotion initiative keeping in view “inclusive growth” and “health development” as a social goal of the society. Health impact assessment of all public policies should be mandated by legislation. “Prevention of diseases” is a more cost-effective strategy than the popular approach of “Treatment.” Therefore, several countries have reengineered their health systems in a variety of ways to protect and improve peoples' health. For example, in England, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 reorganized the health services to create National Health Service England and Public Health England,[6] and in Thailand, the National Health Security Act 2002 granted everyone the right to a standard and efficient health service and established National Health Security Office to improve universal health coverage.[7] The World Health Organization has also recently planned a call to countries to set up leadership at all levels to protect the people from public health emergencies, to improve universal health coverage, and to ensure that people enjoy better health and well-being.[8] Indian should also reorganize its health system. Parliament should promulgate Indian Public Health Act with a mandate to protect and promote health of people as a fundamental right to health and health care. An autonomous “Public Health Commission” should be established to implement the provisions of the Act. It should have a public health commissioner with three deputy commissioners to head (a) epidemiology, (b) public policy, and (c) health promotion and education divisions. At state level, an additional public health commissioner should chair the State Public Health Commission which should have three deputy commissioners representing the above-mentioned three divisions, and at district level, a public health officer should head the District Public Health Commission who should be assisted by three additional public health officers. Each municipality should have a deputy public health officer and three public health supervisors. The Panchayat Raj Institutions, at district and community development block level, should have a deputy public health officer and an assistant public health officer. At Panchayat level, a public health supervisor should be appointed. Public Health Commission should have sufficient infrastructure (secretarial support staff, technical staff, equipment, office space, and budget) so that, in coordination with all sectors, a Public Health Action Plan can be prepared, funded, implemented, and monitored periodically. In summary, to achieve the universal health coverage, major challenge in India is promotion of health, prevention of diseases, and provision of health care in a balanced manner, which will require innovative public policies, strategies, and programs in many sectors. Development and implementation of a multisectoral approach to achieve sustainable development goals is the need of the hour. Establishment of a Public Health Commission will go a long way in achieving coordination of various initiatives not only in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare but also in many other relevant ministries/sectors. At least 5% of the gross domestic product should be earmarked for public health and a responsive governance mechanism as outlined above should be set up, to achieve universal health coverage by 2030 as envisaged in the United Nations sustainable development goals which are also endorsed by the Government of India.[9]
INTRODUCTION: Fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization are distinct policy options in public services in general and healthcare in particular, with possibly opposed effects on equity, effectiveness, and efficiency. However, the pertinent discourse often reflects confusion between the concepts or conflation thereof. METHODS: This paper performs a narrative review of theoretical literature on decentralization. The study offers clear definitions of the concepts of fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization and provides an overview of the potential implications of each policy for healthcare systems. RESULTS: The interpretation of the literature identified three different dimensions of decentralization: political, administrative, economic. Economic decentralization can be further implemented through two different policy options: fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization. Fiscal federalism is the transfer of spending authority of a centrally pooled public health budget to local governments or authorities. Countries like the UK, Cuba, Denmark, and Brazil mostly rely on fiscal federalism mechanisms for healthcare financing. Fiscal decentralization consists of transferring both pooling and spending responsibilities from the central government to local authorities. Contrarily to fiscal federalism, the implementation of fiscal decentralization requires as a precondition the fragmentation of the national pool into many local pools. The restructuring of the pooling system may limit the cross-subsidization effect between high- and low-income groups and areas that a central pool guarantees; thus, severely affecting local equality and equity. With the limited availability of local public resources in poorer regions, the quality of services drops, increasing the disparity gap between areas. Evidence from Italy, Spain, China, and Ivory Coast -countries with a strong fiscal decentralization element in their healthcare services- suggests that fiscal decentralization has positive effects on the infant mortality rate. However, it decreases healthcare resources as well as access to services, fostering spatial inequities. CONCLUSION: If public resources are and remain adequate, allocation follows equitable criteria, and local communities are involved in the decision-making debate, fiscal federalism -rather than fiscal decentralization- appear to be an adequate policy option to improve the healthcare services and population's health nationwide and achieve health sector economic decentralization. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 107-113.
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Health sector decentralization, defined as the transfer of decision making over health sector resources from a central to a peripheral entity; has been and continues to be a widely adopted health system reforms in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, its reported effects have been varied. Nevertheless, decentralization reforms aimed at providing public hospital management autonomy are increasing in prevalence in many LMICs. The range and form of this autonomy because of these reforms has often produced mixed effects. We set out to understand the range of financial management autonomy that has been granted to public hospitals in decentralized health systems in LMICs, and what forms of accountability arrangements have been used to facilitate this autonomy. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and CINAHL databases for published articles on this subject. We only included articles that reported empirical findings on hospital level financing and financial management in the context of decentralization in LMICs and/or those that included findings on hospital level finance management accountability arrangements. After a systematic search we found four articles that met our inclusion criteria. We undertook a thematic synthesis of the data and narrative reporting of our findings. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> From the review – we find that decentralization reforms did not result in improved funding flows, finance management autonomy or accountability mechanisms and for public hospitals. These outcomes were irrespective of the mode and form of decentralization reform adopted. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion:</ns4:bold> From our review, it is evident that though health sector decentralization reforms have been widely promoted and adopted in the past few decades across LMICs, there is minimal evidence that these reforms have improved funding flows to public hospitals, improved financial management autonomy or accountability mechanisms; so as to enhance the performance of these hospitals at sub-national level. </ns4:p>
Trisya Rakmawati, Reece Hinchcliff, Jerico Franciscus Pardosi
The local-level impacts of decentralizing national health systems are significant yet infrequently examined. This review aims to assess whether localized health services delivery in Indonesia, which commenced a health system decentralization process in 2001, achieved its objectives or could be enhanced. A systematic review was undertaken to collate published evidence regarding this topic and synthesize key findings holistically using the six building blocks framework of the World Health Organization (WHO) to categorize health system performance. Four research databases were searched in 2016 for relevant evidence published between 2001 and 2015. The inclusion criteria were relevance to the topic of decentralization impacts at the district level, original research, and published in English. Included articles were appraised for quality using a standardized tool, with key findings synthesized using the WHO building blocks. Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria and categorized under the WHO building blocks categories. The findings highlight problematic impacts of decentralization related to three building blocks: service delivery, health financing, and workforce. In the 15 years of post-decentralization in Indonesia, the service delivery, health workforce, and health financing blocks should be prioritized for further research and policy evaluation to improve the overall health system performance at the district level.
BACKGROUND: Universal health coverage (UHC) assures all types of health service and protects all citizens financially in any conditions due to illness. Globally, the UN sustainable development goal (SDG) provides high priority for UHC as a health related goal. The National health system of Nepal has prioritized in similar way. The aim of this study is to explore the challenges and opportunities on the road to UHC in Nepal. METHOD: We used varieties of search terminologies with popular search engines like PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, etc. to identify studies regarding Nepal's progress towards UHC. Reports of original studies, policies, guidelines and government manuals were taken from the web pages of Ministry of Health and its department/division. Searches were designed to identify the status of service coverage on UHC, financial protection on health particularly, health insurance coverage with its legal status. Other associated factors related to UHC were also explored and presented in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart. RESULTS: We found 14 studies that were related to legal assurance, risk pulling and financing of health service, 11 studies associated to UHC service coverage status and, 7 articles linked to government stewardship, health system and governance on health care. Constitutional provision, global support, progress on the health insurance act, decentralization of health service to the grass root level, positive trends of increasing service coverage are seen as opportunities. However, existing volunteer types of health insurance, misleading role of trade unions and high proportion of population outside the country are main challenges. The political commitment under the changing political context, a sense of national priority and international support were identified as the facilitating factors towards UHC. CONCLUSION: To achieve UHC, service and population coverage of health services has to be expanded along with financial protection for marginalized communities. Government stewardship, support of stakeholders and fair contribution and distribution of resources by appropriate health financing modality can speed up the path of UHC in Nepal.
The 2012 national health policy is the \n overarching health policy framework in Zambia. The policy \n takes a human rights approach to health care provision, \n where all citizens are entitled to basic health care \n (Ministry of Health 2012). The policy is actualized through \n successive five-year national health strategic plans. \n Operationally, Zambia’s health system is centralized, with \n delegated responsibilities from the center to lower levels \n of the health care delivery system. The Ministry of Health \n plays a dual role of policy formulation and strategic \n planning and delivery of health services, with provincial \n and district health offices being upwardly accountable to \n the Ministry of Health headquarters. Going forward, Zambia \n is in the process of launching two major reforms which will \n further affect the organization of the health sector. These \n are (a) implementation of the National Decentralization \n Policy, and (b) introduction of a National Health Insurance \n (NHI) scheme. The PHC function (including transfer of PHC \n staff to local government authorities) is among the front \n runner for decentralization. If national decentralization is \n fully implemented, it will affect the way health services \n are organized, delivered, and financed in the country. Thus, \n adequate preparations in the health sector are required to \n minimize challenges. Secondly, Zambia enacted the NHI Act in \n April 2018 which provides the legal mandate to establish the \n NHI management authority, and the NHI scheme. At the time of \n this study, it was envisaged that implementation of the NHI \n scheme will be done in a phased manner with a view of \n covering the entire population in the medium to long term. \n However, depending on the final design and implementation \n process, the NHI will have a substantial effect on the \n financing and delivery of health programs and services in \n Zambia. One of the immediate challenges will be providing \n insurance cover to the informal sector and indigent people \n in rural areas.
Decentralization has been promoted as a strategy to bring decision-making closer to local levels where people know better their needs. In the health sector, however, the evidence for its effectiveness has been mixed. This PhD thesis analyzed the effectiveness of decentralization in improving the health sector by focusing on the Philippines where health services were decentralized through devolution to local governments in 1992. \n \nDrawing from the “decision space” approach and using mixed methods, this thesis determined the conditions that enable decentralization to be effective by analyzing the perspectives of decision-makers in the Philippine health system. Decision-making was explored in the functions of: planning; financing and budget allocation; program implementation and service delivery; management of facilities, equipment, and supplies; health workforce management; and data monitoring and utilization. The interplay between decision space and capacity and accountability in optimizing decision-making for these functions was further analyzed. The thesis then developed a systematic review protocol to assess the global evidence on decentralization’s effectiveness. \n \nThis thesis concludes that changing the structure of governance through decentralization will not enhance service delivery unless certain conditions are met. It is recommended that decentralized countries like the Philippines emphasize capacity building of local decision-makers to perform their functions better, enforce accountability mechanisms to promote good decision-making at local levels, and deploy a combination of decentralized and centralized functions that will be optimal for the health system.
Joshua Ssebunnya, S. Kangere, James Mugisha, Sumaiyah Docrat · 7 authors
BACKGROUND: In spite of the pronounced adverse economic consequences of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders on households in most low- and middle-income countries, service coverage and financial protection for these families is very limited. The aim of this study was to generate potential strategies for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda in an effort to move towards increased financial protection and service coverage for these families. METHODS: The process of identifying potential strategies for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda was guided by an analytical framework developed by the Emerging Mental health systems in low and middle income countries (EMERALD project). Data were collected through a situational analysis (public health burden assessment, health system assessment, macro fiscal assessment) and eight key informant interviews with selected stakeholders from sectors including health, finance and civil society. The situational analysis provided contextualization for the strategies, and was complimented by views from key informant interviews. RESULTS: Findings indicate that the following strategies have the greatest potential for moving towards more equitable and sustainable mental health financing in the Uganda context: implementing National Health Insurance Scheme; shifting to Results Based Financing; decentralizing mental health services that can be provided at community level; and continued advocacy with decision makers with evidence through research. CONCLUSION: Although several options were identified for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda, the National Health Insurance Scheme seemed the most viable option. However, for the scheme to be effective, there is need for scale up to community health facilities and implementation in a manner that explicitly includes community level facilities.
BACKGROUND: Decentralization is promoted as a strategy to improve health system performance by bringing decision-making closer to service delivery. Some studies have investigated if decentralization actually improves the health system. However, few have explored the conditions that enable it to be effective. To determine these conditions, we have analyzed the perspectives of decision-makers in the Philippines where devolution, one form of decentralization, was introduced 25 years ago. METHODS: Drawing from the "decision space" approach, we interviewed 27 decision-makers with an average of 23.6 years of working across different levels of the Philippine government health sector and representing various local settings. Qualitative analysis followed the "Framework Method." Conditions that either enable or hinder the effectiveness of decentralization were identified by exploring decision-making in five health sector functions. RESULTS: These conditions include: for planning, having a multi-stakeholder approach and monitoring implementation; for financing and budget allocation, capacities to raise revenues at local levels and pooling of funds at central level; for resource management, having a central level capable of augmenting resource needs at local levels and a good working relationship between the local health officer and the elected local official; for program implementation and service delivery, promoting innovation at local levels while maintaining fidelity to national objectives; and for monitoring and data management, a central level capable of ensuring that data collection from local levels is performed in a timely and accurate manner. CONCLUSIONS: The Philippine experience suggests that decentralization is a long and complex journey and not an automatic solution for enhancing service delivery. The role of the central decision-maker (e.g. Ministry of Health) remains important to assist local levels unable to perform their functions well. It is policy-relevant to analyze the conditions that make decentralization work and the optimal combination of decentralized and centralized functions that enhance the health system.
Moritz Piatti-Fünfkirchen, Magnus Lindelöw, Katelyn Jison Yoo
Progress toward universal health care (UHC) in Africa will require sustained increases in public spending on health and reduced reliance on out-of-pocket financing. This article reviews trends and patterns of government spending in the East and Southern Africa regions and points out methodological challenges with interpreting data from the World Health Organization's (WHO) Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) and other sources. Government expenditure for health has increased for most countries, albeit at a slower rate than gross domestic product (GDP). In most countries there has been a prioritization away from health in government budgets, putting the onus on the private sector and donors to fill the gap. Donor support is important in the region but reliance on external spending is not consistent with countries' stated ambitions of universal health coverage. A number of methodological challenges with estimating health expenditures are identified. Capturing health expenditures adequately across agencies and levels of decentralization can be challenging, and off-budget funds and arrears are evasive. Measurement error can be significant because actual expenditure information can be hard to come by and is often dated and unreliable. Furthermore, how external financing is captured will affect government health expenditure estimates. These factors have contributed to differences in expenditure estimates between the WHO GHED and country-specific public expenditure reviews and complicate interpretation. The article concludes that it is critical to strengthen national data capacity and international efforts to promote quality and consistency of data. The GHED is an invaluable resource for monitoring and benchmarking health expenditures. It is best used in combination with deep dive country expenditure assessments.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Numerous studies have highlighted the regressive and immiserating impact of out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending in India. However, most of these studies have explored this issue at the national or up to the State level, with an associated risk of overlooking intra-State diversities in the health system and health-seeking behaviour and their implication on the financial burden of healthcare. This study was aimed to address this issue by analyzing district level diversities in inequity, financial burden and impoverishing impact of OOP health spending. METHODS: A household survey of 62,335 individuals from 12,134 households, covering eight districts across three States, namely Gujarat, Haryana and Rajasthan was conducted during 2014-2015. Other than general household characteristics, the survey collected information on household OOP [sum total of expenditure on doctor consultation, drugs, diagnostic tests etc. on inpatient depatment (IPD), outpatient depatment (OPD) or chronic ailments] and household monthly consumption expenditure [sum total of monthly expenditure on food, clothing, education, healthcare (OOP) and others]. Gini index of consumption expenditure, concentration index and Kakwani index (KI) of progressivity of OOP, catastrophic burden (at 20% threshold) and poverty impact (using district-level poverty thresholds) were computed, for these eight districts using the survey data. The concentration curve (of OOP expenditure) and Lorenz curve (of consumption expenditure) for the eight districts were also drawn. RESULTS: The distribution of OOP was found to be regressive in all the districts, with significant inter-district variations in equity parameters within a State (KI ranges from -0.062 to -0.353). Chhota Udepur, the only tribal district within the sample was found to have the most regressive distribution (KI of -0.353) of OOP. Furthermore, the economic burden of OOP was more pronounced among the rural sample (CB of 19.2% and IM of 8.9%) compared to the urban sample (CB of 9.4% and IM of 3.7%). INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that greater decentralized planning taking into account district-level health financing patterns could be an effective way to tackle inequity and financial vulnerability emerging out of OOP expenses on healthcare.
Adelyne Maria Mendes Pereira, Luciana Dias de Lima, Cristiani Vieira Machado
This article discusses the processes of de centralization and regionalization of health policy in Brazil and Spain between 1980 and 2015. The study was developed with contributions of the historical institutionalism and of the historical com parative method, by means of three dimensions of analysis: State context; trajectory and institution ality of the decentralization and regionalization of health; and constraints. The study showed that,in both countries, the more general context of re-democratization and decentralization of the State conditioned the reforms of health systems and their political-administrative organization. In addition, historical, institutional and political factors have had a specific impact in each case, influencing the regional organization of services, the balance of power and the division of responsibilities between the governmental spheres in the management, financing and coordination of health policy. The study suggests that the way these factors interrelated over time is important for understanding the decentralization and regionalization of health systems in different contexts.
José Carvalho de Noronha, Gustavo Souto de Noronha, Telma Ruth Pereira, Ana Maria Costa
This article reflects on the future of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese), based on the foresight exercises conducted by the Brasil Saúde Amanhã initiative of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. The text briefly reviews some paths followed by the SUS as referred to in the Federal Constitution of 1988. It highlights the movement towards the decentralization of care and the constraint of health financial resources that reduced policies of increasing public expenditures. It examines the public and private arrangements for financing and provision of services that have resulted in sectoral privatization, mainly from economic policies articulated with concession of fiscal benefits. It analyzes the changes in the public sector financing through successive constitutional amendments that resulted in the weakening of established social protection policies, particularly of the health sector. For the future, the text considers population aging and analyzes trends in the epidemiological profile, with consequent changes in the health care paradigm. The article concludes by pointing out the consequences of fiscal strangling in the organization of the healthcare system and the need to reverse legal provisions that hamper the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate for equity and universality.
Background: Governments engage in setting health sector priorities among competing interests to maximize health system goals within the available resources. This is important as misalignment between health priorities and budget allocations can lead to low budget allocations and underspending in the health sector.\nGoal: The goals of the study are twofold. First, measure the extent of alignment between a stated government priority and actual government expenditure. Second, if there is misalignment, explain the underlying bottlenecks including institutions, structures, and capacities.\nMethod: The study focuses on one stated health sector priority shared between Kenya and Mozambique, which is improving geographical equity of governmental resources for health. An explanatory mixed methods design is used, in which quantitative analysis is followed by a qualitative assessment. In quantitative analysis, Gini index is used to summarize the differences in per capita health expenditures across regions. In addition, health expenditure is decomposed as a product of total budget, health budget priority, and health budget execution to identify whether resource allocation or resource utilization lead to geographical inequity. The qualitative assessment consisted of 23 semi-structured key informant interviews, 10 for Kenya, 11 for Mozambique, to explain the quantitative results.\nResults: In both Kenya and Mozambique there is geographical inequity in government health spending, which is inconsistent with the stated government priority (Gini greater than zero). The decomposition of health expenditure suggests that, in Kenya, the misalignment is driven by both resource allocation and utilization processes; in Mozambique, it is driven largely by the resource allocation process. \nThe qualitative analysis reveals several bottlenecks that are common between the two countries. At the institutional level, there is institutional separation between planning and budgeting, decision-making is ad hoc, and difficult decisions on hard choices and tradeoffs are left to the end of the budget process. At the structural level, rapid and unplanned decentralization in Kenya and the deconcentration model in Mozambique have led to inadequate structures to align planning and budgeting. At the capacity level, there are too many administrative demands on planning and budgeting staff, who also lack technical expertise and adequate data to make evidence-based decisions.
A major challenge to achieve health coverage in Nigeria is expansion of health access to the poor, vulnerable and informal sectors, which constitute over 70% of the population of more than 186 million. Evidence from other countries suggests that it is difficult for contributory insurance schemes to achieve universal health coverage in such conditions, especially with such a large informal sector. In fact, Nigeria's national social health insurance program has provided coverage to less than 5% of the population since its implementation in 2005, private voluntary health insurance has shown poor potential to extend coverage, and community-based health insurance has failed to expand access to poor, vulnerable and informal sector populations as well. Decentralization of health insurance to the states has limited potential to expand health insurance coverage for the poor, vulnerable and those in the informal sector. Furthermore, social health insurance in many developed countries has taken many years to achieve universal health coverage. This paper suggests that policy makers should consider adopting a tax-based, noncontributory, universal health-financing system as the primary funding mechanism to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage. Social health insurance and its decentralization to states for formal sector workers should serve as a supplement, while private voluntary health insurance should cover better-off groups. Simultaneously, it is critical to tackle issues of poor governance structures, mismanagement of funds, corruption, and lack of transparency and accountability within regulatory and implementing agencies, to ensure that monies allocated for expanded health insurance coverage are well managed. Although the proposed universal health coverage reform may take some years to achieve, it is more feasible to collect taxes, improve tax administration and expand the tax base than to enforce payment of contributions from nonsalaried workers and those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance or for services out of pocket.
Brian M. Till, Alexander W. Peters, Salim Afshar, John G. Meara
Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies could remake global health financing and usher in an era global health equity and universal health coverage. We outline and provide examples for at least four important ways in which this potential disruption of traditional global health funding mechanisms could occur: universal access to financing through direct transactions without third parties; novel new multilateral financing mechanisms; increased security and reduced fraud and corruption; and the opportunity for open markets for healthcare data that drive discovery and innovation. We see these issues as a paramount to the delivery of healthcare worldwide and relevant for payers and providers of healthcare at state, national and global levels; for government and non-governmental organisations; and for global aid organisations, including the WHO, International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group.
IntroductionHealth is the foundation of an engaged and happy life, and modern humans have been the fortunate beneficiaries of great advances in medical technology (Collins, 2015). With each new technology, more clues become available to decipher the problems that plague our well-being. The advent of individualized information from cheaper genome sequencing, the Internet of
Marcelo Battesini, Carla Lourenço Tavares de Andrade, Marismary Horsth De Seta
Health Surveillance carries out a set of actions to prevent health risks related to the consumption of products and the provision of services under the Unified Health System (SUS). The implementation of Health Surveillance actions relies heavily on the federal funding policy, which induces its decentralization. This text aims to analyze the federal funding of Health Surveillance to States and Municipalities from the scheduled onlendings in the period 2005-2012. Among the main results are the increase of per capita values, steady at around the mean value of R$ 1.25/inhabitant/year; the increased number of municipalities that agreed to carry out strategic actions; and a stable trend in the proportions of each federated entity at around 50% to Municipalities, 25% to state federated entities and 20% to the Central Public Health Laboratories (LACENs). Results show that the adoption of unified nationwide per capita values caused distortions that indicate inequity among state territories, pointing to the need to clarify the concept of equity in financing under the National Health Surveillance System and to broaden the discussion on the currently used allocation criteria.