Balancing health and financial protection in health benefit package design.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lofgren KT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293346 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: A special health fund was established in Nigeria in 2014 and is known as the Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF). The fund is equivalent to at least 1% of the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation. The BHCPF will provide additional revenue to fund primary healthcare services and help Nigeria to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). This fund is to be matched with counterpart funds from states and local government areas (LGAs), and is expected to provide at least a basic benefit health package that will cover maternal and child health (MCH) services for pregnant women and under-five children. Objective: To determine the financial feasibility of using the BHCPF to provide a minimum benefit package to cover all pregnant women and under-five children in Nigeria. Methods: The study focused on three states in Nigeria: Imo, Kaduna, and Niger. The feasibility analysis was performed using 3 scenarios but the main analysis was Scenario 1, which was based on the funding of drugs and consumables only. All the costs and revenues were in 2015 levels. The standard costs of a minimum benefit package for the different states were multiplied by the number of target beneficiaries to determine the amount required for the year. Financial feasibility is determined by the excess or otherwise of revenue over costs. Findings: It was found that in the best case funding scenario of using 95% of the CRF with 25% counterpart funding from states and LGAs, the entire available funds were not adequate to cover the benefit package for all the pregnant women and under-five children in the three states. The funds were also inadequate to cover the target beneficiaries that live below the poverty line in two of the states. Conclusion: The BHCPF is a good step toward providing essential MCH services, but the current level of funding will not assure UHC for all the target beneficiaries. However, the available funds should be used immediately to target priority mothers and children such as vulnerable groups, whilst sourcing for additional funds to ensure universal coverage of MCH services.
| S-EPMC6064932 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6598720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2007 the Georgian government introduced a full state-subsidized Medical Insurance Program for the Poor (MIP) to provide better financial protection and improved access for socially and financially disadvantaged citizens. Studies evaluating MIP have noted its positive impact on financial protection, but find only a marginal impact on improved access. To better assess whether the effect of MIP varies according to different conditions, and to identify areas for improvement, we explored whether MIP differently affects utilization and costs among chronic patients compared to those with acute health needs.Data were collected from two cross-sectional nationally representative household surveys conducted in 2007 and in 2010 that examined health care utilization rates and expenditures. Approximately 3,200 households were interviewed from each wave of both studies using a standardized survey questionnaire. Differences in health care utilization and expenditures between chronic and acute patients with and without MIP insurance were evaluated, using coarsened exact matching techniques.Among patients with chronic illnesses, MIP did not affect either health service utilization or expenditures for outpatient drugs and reduction in provider fees. For patients with acute illnesses MIP increased the odds (OR = 1.47) that they would use health services. MIP was also associated with a 20.16 Gel reduction in provider fees for those with acute illnesses (p = 0.003) and a 15.14 Gel reduction in outpatient drug expenditure (p = 0.013). Among those reporting a chronic illness with acute episode during the 30 days prior to the interview, MIP reduced expenditures on provider fees (B = -20.02 GEL) with marginal statistical significance.Our findings suggest that the MIP may have improved utilization and reduce costs incurred by patients with acute health needs, while chronic patients marginally benefit only during exacerbation of their illnesses. This suggests that the MIP did not adequately address the needs of the aging Georgian population where chronic illnesses are prevalent. Increasing MIP benefits, particularly for patients with chronic illnesses, should receive priority attention if universal coverage objectives are to be achieved.
| S-EPMC4352571 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Monitoring financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures is important to understand how health financing arrangements in a country protect its population against high costs associated with accessing health services. While catastrophic health expenditures are generally defined to be when household expenditures for health exceed a given threshold of household resources, there is no gold standard with several methods applied to define the threshold and household resources. These different approaches to constructing the indicator might give different pictures of a country's progress towards financial protection. In order for monitoring to effectively provide policy insight, it is critical to understand the sensitivity of measurement to these choices. METHODS:This paper examines the impact of varying two methodological choices by analysing household expenditure data from a sample of 47 countries. We assess sensitivity of cross-country comparisons to a range of thresholds by testing for restricted dominance. We further assess sensitivity of comparisons to different methods for defining household resources (i.e. total expenditure, non-food expenditure and non-subsistence expenditure) by conducting correlation tests of country rankings. RESULTS:We found country rankings are robust to the choice of threshold in a tenth to a quarter of comparisons within the 5-85% threshold range and this increases to half of comparisons if the threshold is restricted to 5-40%, following those commonly used in the literature. Furthermore, correlations of country rankings using different methods to define household resources were moderate to high; thus, this choice makes less difference from a measurement perspective than from an ethical perspective as different definitions of available household resources reflect varying concerns for equity. CONCLUSIONS:Interpreting comparisons from global monitoring based on a single threshold should be done with caution as these may not provide reliable insight into relative country progress. We therefore recommend financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures be measured across a range of thresholds using a catastrophic incidence curve as shown in this paper. We further recommend evaluating financial protection in relation to a country's health financing system arrangements in order to better understand the extent of protection and better inform future policy changes.
| S-EPMC5984475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Financial protection in health is an essential aspect of the universal health coverage discourse. It is about ensuring that paying for health services does not affect the ability of households and individuals to afford necessities. A well-known way to assess financial protection is whether or not people are pushed into-or further into-poverty by paying out-of-pocket for health services. Although impoverishment from out-of-pocket health spending is not an explicit indicator of the sustainable development goals, it has gained prominence among researchers and policymakers because of its intuitive appeal and link to overall poverty reduction. Using data from Nigeria, this paper demonstrates that the choice of poverty line matters for assessing the impoverishing effect of paying out-of-pocket for health services. Among other things, the inconsistencies (or lack of dominance) could occur in ranking impoverishment levels by mutually exclusive groups within a country or in ranking different countries or a country over time. The implication is that the choice of poverty line could lead to manipulation of results for policy and for supporting an agenda that demonstrates an improvement in financial protection when this may not necessarily be the case.
| S-EPMC7756704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEnsuring financial risk protection in health care and achieving universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 is one of the crucial Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets for many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Bangladesh. We examined the critical trajectory of financial risk protection against out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure in Bangladesh.MethodsUsing Bangladesh Household Income and Expenditure Survey data from 2005, 2010, and 2016, we examined the levels and distributions of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishment incidences. We used the normative food, housing, and utilities method, refining it by categorizing households with zero OOP expenses by reasons.ResultsOOP expenditure doubled between 2005 and 2016 (USD 115.6 in 2005, USD 162.1 in 2010, USD 242.9 in 2016), accompanied by rising CHE (11.5% in 2005, 11.9% in 2010, 16.6% in 2016) and impoverishment incidence (1.5% in 2005, 1.6% in 2010, 2.3% in 2016). While further impoverishment of the poor households due to OOP expenditure (3.6% in 2005, 4.1% in 2010, 3.9% in 2016) was a more severe problem than impoverishment of the non-poor, around 5.5% of non-poor households were always at risk of impoverishment. The poorest households were the least financially protected throughout the study period (lowest vs. highest quintile CHE: 29.5% vs. 7.6%, 33.2% vs. 7.2%, and 37.6% vs. 13.0% in 2005, 2010, and 2016, respectively). The disparity in CHE among households with and without chronic illness was also remarkable in 2016 (25.0% vs. 9.1%).ConclusionFinancial risk protection in Bangladesh exhibits a deteriorated trajectory from 2005 to 2016, posing a significant challenge to achieving UHC and, thus, the SDGs by 2030. The poorest and chronically ill households disproportionately lacked financial protection. Reversing the worsening trends of CHE and impoverishment and addressing the inequities in their distributions calls for implementing UHC and thus providing financial protection against illness.
| S-EPMC9231789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antithrombotic trials in venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention, including those evaluating the new oral anticoagulants, have typically evaluated thromboembolism risk as an efficacy endpoint and bleeding risk as a separate safety endpoint. Findings often occur in opposition (i.e. decreased thromboembolism accompanied by increased bleeding, or vice-versa), leading to variable interpretation of the results, which may ultimately be judged as equivocal. In this paper, we offer an alternative to traditional designs based on the concept of a bivariate primary endpoint that accounts for simultaneous effects on antithrombotic efficacy and harm due to bleeding. We suggest a bivariate endpoint as a general approach to the assessment of 'net clinical benefit' in recently published trials and to the design of future trials. Lastly, we illustrate the bivariate endpoint design using two examples: a recently published superiority trial of rivaroxaban (RECORD1) and an ongoing non-inferiority trial of the duration of anticoagulant therapy in children with venous thrombosis (Kids-DOTT).
| S-EPMC4528967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of community-based health insurance (CBHI) in low-income countries is inconclusive. This study assessed the impact of CBHI on health service utilization and financial risk protection in Ethiopia.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cross-sectional study nested within a larger national household survey in 2020. Data was collected from three groups of households-CBHI member households (n = 1586), non-member households from CBHI implementing woredas (n = 1863), and non-member households from non-CBHI implementing woredas (n = 789). Indicators of health service utilization, out-of-pocket health spending, catastrophic health expenditure, and impoverishment due to health spending among CBHI members were compared with non-members from CBHI implementing woredas and households from non-CBHI implementing woredas. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for possible selection bias.ResultsThe annual number of OPD visits per capita among CBHI member households was 2.09, compared to 1.53 among non-member households from CBHI woredas and 1.75 among households from non-CBHI woredas. PSM estimates indicated that CBHI members had 0.36 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI: -0.04, 0.19) more outpatient department (OPD) visits per capita per year than their matched non-member households from CBHI-implementing and non-CBHI implementing woredas, respectively. CBHI membership resulted in a 28-43% reduction in annual OOP payments as compared to non-member households. CBHI member households were significantly less likely to incur catastrophic health expenditures (measured as annual OOP payments of more than 10% of the household's total expenditure) compared to non-members (p < 0.01).ConclusionCBHI membership increases health service utilization and financial protection. CBHI proves to be an important strategy for promoting universal health coverage. Implementing CBHI in all woredas and increasing membership among households in woredas that are already implementing CBHI will further expand its benefits.
| S-EPMC9869550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveUniversal Health Coverage aims to address the challenges posed by healthcare inequalities and inequities by increasing the accessibility and affordability of healthcare for the entire population. This review provides information related to impact of public-funded health insurance (PFHI) on financial risk protection and utilisation of healthcare.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline (via PubMed, Web of Science), Scopus, Social Science Research Network and 3ie impact evaluation repository were searched from their inception until 15 July 2020, for English-language publications.Eligibility criteriaStudies giving information about the different PFHI in India, irrespective of population groups (above 18 years), were included. Cross-sectional studies with comparison, impact evaluations, difference-in-difference design based on before and after implementation of the scheme, pre-post, experimental trials and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed by three reviewers independently. Due to heterogeneity in population and study design, statistical pooling was not possible; therefore, narrative synthesis was performed.OutcomesUtilisation of healthcare, willingness-to-pay (WTP), out-of-pocket expenditure (including outpatient and inpatient), catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment.ResultsThe impact of PFHI on financial risk protection reports no conclusive evidence to suggest that the schemes had any impact on financial protection. The impact of PFHIs such as Rashtriya Swasthy Bima Yojana, Vajpayee Arogyashree and Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana showed increased access and utilisation of healthcare services. There is a lack of evidence to conclude on WTP an additional amount to the existing monthly financial contribution.ConclusionDifferent central and state PFHIs increased the utilisation of healthcare services by the beneficiaries, but there was no conclusive evidence for reduction in financial risk protection of the beneficiaries.RegistrationNot registered.
| S-EPMC8704974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.Methods and analysisThis protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.
| S-EPMC6549617 | biostudies-literature