Dataset Information

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness".

ABSTRACT: Universal health coverage (UHC) is high on the global health agenda, and priority setting is fundamental to the fair and efficient pursuit of this goal. In a recent editorial, Rob Baltussen and colleagues point to the need to go beyond evidence on cost-effectiveness and call for evidence-informed deliberative processes when setting priorities for UHC. Such processes are crucial at every step on the path to UHC, and hopefully we will see intensified efforts to develop and implement processes of this kind in the coming years. However, if this does happen, it will be essential to ensure a sufficiently broad scope in at least two respects. First, the design of evidence-informed priority-setting processes needs to go beyond a simple view on the relationship between evidence and policy and adapt to a diverse set of factors shaping this relationship. Second, these processes should go beyond a focus on clinical services to accommodate also public health interventions. Together, this can help strengthen priority-setting processes and bolster progress towards UHC and the Sustainable Development Goals.

SUBMITTER: Gopinathan U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5553216 | biostudies-other | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In responses to Norheim's editorial, this commentary offers reflections from Thailand, how the five unacceptable trade-offs were applied to the universal health coverage (UHC) reforms between 1975 and 2002 when the whole 64 million people were covered by one of the three public health insurance systems. This commentary aims to generate global discussions on how best UHC can be gradually achieved. Not only the proposed five discrete trade-offs within each dimension, there are also trade-offs between the three dimensions of UHC such as population coverage, service coverage and cost coverage. Findings from Thai UHC show that equity is applied for the population coverage extension, when the low income households and the informal sector were the priority population groups for coverage extension by different prepayment schemes in 1975 and 1984, respectively. With an exception of public sector employees who were historically covered as part of fringe benefits were covered well before the poor. The private sector employees were covered last in 1990. Historically, Thailand applied a comprehensive benefit package where a few items are excluded using the negative list; until there was improved capacities on technology assessment that cost-effectiveness are used for the inclusion of new interventions into the benefit package. Not only cost-effectiveness, but long term budget impact, equity and ethical considerations are taken into account. Cost coverage is mostly determined by the fiscal capacities. Close ended budget with mix of provider payment methods are used as a tool for trade-off service coverage and financial risk protection. Introducing copayment in the context of fee-for-service can be harmful to beneficiaries due to supplier induced demands, inefficiency and unpredictable out of pocket payment by households. UHC achieves favorable outcomes as it was implemented when there was a full geographical coverage of primary healthcare coverage in all districts and sub-districts after three decade of health infrastructure investment and health workforce development since 1980s. The legacy of targeting population group by different prepayment mechanisms, leading to fragmentation, discrepancies and inequity across schemes, can be rectified by harmonization at the early phase when these schemes were introduced. Robust public accountability and participation mechanisms are recommended when deciding the UHC strategy.

Project description:Poor geographic access can persist even when affordable and well-functioning health systems are in place, limiting efforts for universal health coverage (UHC). It is unclear how to balance support for health facilities and community health workers in UHC national strategies. The goal of this study was to evaluate how a health system strengthening (HSS) intervention aimed towards UHC affected the geographic access to primary care in a rural district of Madagascar. For this, we collected the fokontany of residence (lowest administrative unit) from nearly 300 000 outpatient consultations occurring in facilities of Ifanadiana district in 2014-2017 and in the subset of community sites supported by the HSS intervention. Distance from patients to facilities was accurately estimated following a full mapping of the district's footpaths and residential areas. We modelled per capita utilization for each fokontany through interrupted time-series analyses with control groups, accounting for non-linear relationships with distance and travel time among other factors, and we predicted facility utilization across the district under a scenario with and without HSS. Finally, we compared geographic trends in primary care when combining utilization at health facilities and community sites. We find that facility-based interventions similar to those in UHC strategies achieved high utilization rates of 1-3 consultations per person year only among populations living in close proximity to facilities. We predict that scaling only facility-based HSS programmes would result in large gaps in access, with over 75% of the population unable to reach one consultation per person year. Community health delivery, available only for children under 5 years, provided major improvements in service utilization regardless of their distance from facilities, contributing to 90% of primary care consultations in remote populations. Our results reveal the geographic limits of current UHC strategies and highlight the need to invest on professionalized community health programmes with larger scopes of service.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Competing priorities in health systems necessitate difficult choices on which health actions and investments to fund: decisions that are complex, value-based, and highly political. In light of the centrality of universal health coverage (UHC) in driving current health policy, we sought to examine the value interests that influence agenda setting in the country's health financing space. Given the plurality of Kenya's health policy levers, we aimed to examine how the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy decision-making and implementation shape discussions on health financing within the UHC framework. METHODS:A series of in-depth key informant interviews were conducted at national and county level (n?=?13) between April and May 2018. Final thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted to identify similarities and differences amongst stakeholders on the challenges hindering Kenya's achievement of UHC in terms of its the optimisation of health service coverage; expansion of the population that benefits from essential healthcare services; and the minimisation of out-of-pocket costs associated with health-seeking behaviour. RESULTS:Our findings indicate that the perceived lack of strategic leadership from Kenya's national government has led to a lack of agreement on stakeholders' interpretation of what is to be understood by UHC, its contextual values and priorities. We observe material differences between and within policy networks on the country's priorities for population coverage, healthcare service provision, and cost-sharing under the UHC dispensation. In spite of this, we note that progressive universalism is considered as the preferred approach towards UHC in Kenya, with most interviewees prioritising an equity-based approach that prioritises better access to healthcare services and financial risk protection. However, the conflicting priorities of key stakeholders risk derailing progress towards the expansion of access to health services and financial risk protection. CONCLUSIONS:This study adds to existing knowledge of UHC in Kenya by contextualising the competing and evolving priorities that should be taken into consideration as the country strategises over its UHC process. We suggest that clear policy action is required from national government and county governments in order to develop a logical and consistent approach towards UHC in Kenya.

Dataset Information

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets