Health Policy Open最新文献

This article reviews progress in primary care reforms in the four Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It draws on the country monitoring work of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, a review of the peer-reviewed literature and an analysis of data available in international databases. The retrieved information was organized according to key health system functions (governance, provision, financing and resource generation), as well as key aims of universal health coverage (access to and quality of primary care and financial protection). The article finds that the four countries have made substantial reforms in all of these areas, but that there is still some way to go towards universal health coverage. Key challenges are the overall lack of public funding for primary care, poor financial protection due to prescribed outpatient medications being generally outside of publicly funded benefits packages, the low status and salary of primary care workers, problems of access to primary care in rural areas, and underdeveloped quality monitoring and improvement systems.

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies across Europe rely on explicit factors for decision making. However, additional undefined factors play a role. This mixed-methods research aimed to identify the implicit factors involved in HTA deliberative processes in five European countries, and to analyze their impact on decision making.

Methods

Between February and May 2021, semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with HTA experts of three different profiles (chair, advisor, and committee member) from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The degree of influence of a set of implicit factors and attributes that play a role in the HTA deliberative process, as previously identified in a systematic literature review, was scored by the experts. Experts were also asked to make recommendations on ways of improving the deliberative process. A qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics of quantitative variables are reported.

Results

Most (18/20) experts concurred that implicit factors play a role in the HTA deliberative process. Recommendations for improving the process fell into three categories: transparency, methodology improvement, and stakeholder involvement. The results suggest a need for 1) increased external involvement HTA and 2) development of a methodology to mitigate the influence of implicit factors in the deliberative process. This could be achieved by updating the current frameworks to acknowledge these implicit factors and by developing methods to address them.

This paper explores Itinerant Medicine Sellers’ (IMSs) operations at loading bays within bus terminals in the Kumasi metropolis. The paper examines how the sellers negotiated access into the loading bays, how they marketed their medicines, where they sourced their medicines from, and the challenges they faced. An exploratory qualitative survey design was adopted for the study. Through convenience sampling, 18 IMSs operating within the bus terminals in the Kumasi metropolis participated in this study. In-depth interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were thematically analysed. The study found that these hawkers negotiated access to the loading bays through multiple informal gatekeepers and employed direct customer engagement in marketing their medicines. It was further revealed that the IMSs sourced their medicines from both formal and informal sources for different reasons, such as affordability and informality of medicines acquisition. The participants operated outside government-prescribed regulations and faced challenges of low capital and sales revenue, poor reception by prospective clients, and government clampdown. The study concludes that medicine hawking is an illegal livelihood strategy and a public health concern. As a phenomenon outside government’s policy guidelines, it is recommended that government intensifies its clampdown activities on these hawkers and engage in public health education on the negative implications of accessing medicines from these IMSs.

The study investigated infection variables and control strategies in 2020 and 2021 and their influence on COVID-19 deaths in the United States, with a particular focus on comparing red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states. The analysis reviewed cumulative COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 by year, state political affiliation, and a priori latent factor groupings of mitigation strategies (lockdown days in 2020, mask mandate days, vaccination rates), social demographic variables (ethnicity, poverty rate), and biological variables (median age, obesity). Analyses first identified possible relationships between all assessed variables using K-means clustering for red, blue, and purple states. Then, a series of regression models were fit to assess the effects of mitigation strategies, social, and biological factors specifically on COVID-19 deaths in red and blue states. Results showed distinct differences in responding to COVID infections between red states to blue states, particularly the red states lessor adoption of mitigation factors leaving more sway on biological factors in predicting deaths. Whereas in blue states, where mitigation factors were more readily implemented, vaccinations had a more significant influence in reducing the probability of infections ending in death. Overall, study findings suggest politicalization of COVID-19 mitigation strategies played a role in death rates across the United States.

Introduction

Community health workers (CHW) were integral in the COVID-19 response, particularly concerning services for populations vulnerable to HIV. Little is known regarding the mental health of CHW during the COVID-19 crisis. The objective of this study was to study resilience of CHW working in HIV non-governmental organizations.

Methods

An anonymous online, cross-sectional questionnaire was implemented during 2021 among CHW in Benin, Colombia, Guatemala, and Spain. Three scales were used to assess mental health: the 6-item Brief-Resilience Scale, the 9-item Patient Scale Questionnaire and the 7‐item Generalized-Anxiety-Disorder scale. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with “low” resilience vs “normal” or “high” resilience.

Results

Among 295 respondents, the median standardized resilience score was 58.33 (IQR = [50.0–75.0], n = 267), 18.52 (IQR = [7.4–33.3], n = 282) for standardized depression score and 19.05 (IQR = [4.8–33.3], n = 274) for standardized anxiety score. Standardized resilience score was negatively correlated with standardized anxiety score (rho = -0.49, p < 0.001, n = 266) and standardized depression score (rho = -0.44, p < 0.001, n = 267).

Conclusions

Normal or high level of resiliency in the HIV CHW were observed during the COVID-19 crisis. Self-efficacy, through COVID-19 prevention training, was a factor associated with resilience. Health policy must place CHW at the core of the healthcare system response to Covid‐19 and to future health emergencies, as they ensure continuity of care for many diseases including HIV among vulnerable populations.

In recent decades, external financing of health systems in low- and middle-income countries has helped achieve remarkable improvements across the world. However, these successes have not come without problems. There are a growing number of areas where external assistance can cause harm and even undermine the development of national health systems. Recent decades have seen a surge of knowledge on investing in health systems. We propose the setting up of investment standards for external assistance that aim to incentivize a more efficient evidence-based investment in a country’s health system, led by decision-makers in country. Using a more standardized process would lead to a better use of precious external assistance resources. The long-term goal would be fully functioning health systems with all the necessary essential public health functions in all countries.

Growth in the availability of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) promises significant innovation in the treatment of serious diseases, but the high cost and one-time administration of CGTs has also raised concern about strain on health plan budgets and inequity in access. We used coverage information from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) database for 18 large commercial health plans in the US and information from state Medicaid websites to examine variation in coverage of 11 CGTs in August 2021. We found that US commercial and Medicaid health plans imposed restrictions in 53.5 % and 68.3 % of their coverage policies for the 11 included CGTs, respectively. In addition, we identified significant variation in access to CGTs across commercial plans and across Medicaid plans. Coverage restrictions for certain CGTs were more common than others; clinical requirements were often (but not always) consistent with the inclusion criteria for the clinical trial central to the drug’s approval. We conclude that there is variation in access to CGTs, creating differential patient access.

Background and objectives

Diabetes has become one of the fastest growing public health emergencies worldwide. The objective of this study was to estimate the average annual out-of-pocket cost of diabetes treatment as well as to find out the catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and their determinants in Bangladeshi context.

Data and methods

The study utilised data from the most recent nationally representative Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016–2017. The incidence of CHE was estimated by applying 10% and 25% of the annual total household expenditure threshold levels. The factors associated with CHE was presented as adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The annual average out-of-pocket cost per diabetes patient was US$ 323 (BDT 25,473). The cost of medication was the main cost driver contributed for 75.43% of the total out-of-pocket cost. The incidence of CHE was 14.34%, and 5.86% of the study households for 10% and 25% of the threshold levels, respectively. The patient aged more than 60 (AOR: 4.89; CI 0.82 to 28.95), uneducated (AOR: 1.83; CI 0.25 to 2.12), comorbid condition (AOR: 1.62; CI 0.94 to 2.79), small household size (AOR: 3.20; CI 0.58 to 17.51), rural resident (AOR: 1.85; CI 0.46 to 1.57), poorest asset quintile (AOR: 4.06; CI 1.43 to 13.87) and private facility type (AOR: 8.16; CI 3.46 to 19.;25) were significantly associated with the incidence of CHE due to diabetes treatment.

Conclusions

There are considerable out-of-pocket costs needed for diabetes care in Bangladesh. The evidence of catastrophic expenditure suggests the urgent need to improve financial risk protection to ensure access to care.

To advance the field of teen pregnancy prevention, new interventions must be developed and tested. The federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP) funds the evaluation of promising interventions. We report on a funding disruption to 21 TPP Tier 2B research grantees across the US that was unusual for its ideological causation, sudden timing, severity, and ultimately court decisions compelling the agency to reverse the decision. We address the following question: How did challenges presented by the attempted funding termination impact grantees’ ability to continue with their intended research? Results from grantee surveys in 2019 demonstrate the funding disruption negatively impacted participant recruitment, organizational collaboration, program delivery, research rigor, and compromised grantees’ ability to complete high-quality evaluations. Results also show most projects could continue, with modified research goals, when funding was reinstated. We conclude administrations should avoid arbitrarily and prematurely terminating research projects. However, there is merit in reinstating funds to projects should a disruption occur. Results from this work are particularly relevant as we anticipate how health research projects may manage other disruptions to funding or timetables, such as those caused by COVID-19. Results are relevant to policy makers, researchers, government and private funders, grantees, and technical assistance teams.