Health systems and reform最新文献

Ethiopia has made great strides in improving population health but sustaining health system and population health improvements in the current fiscal environment is challenging. Provider payment, as a function of purchasing, is a tool to use limited health resources better. This study describes the design and implementation of Ethiopia's provider payment mechanisms (PPMs) and how they influence health system objectives and contribute to universal health coverage goals. The research team adapted the framework and analytical tools of the Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage guide for assessing PPMs. Data were collected through literature review and key informant interviews with 11 purchasers and 17 health care providers. Content analysis was used to describe PPM design and implementation arrangements, and thematic analysis was used to distill effects on equity in resource distribution and access to care, efficiency, quality of care, and financial sustainability. The study revealed the PPMs had positive and negative consequences. Line-item budgets were perceived to be predictable and sustainable but had little effect on efficiency and provider performance. Fee-for-service was perceived to have negative effects on efficiency and financial sustainability but viewed positively on its ability to incentivize quality health services. Capitation and performance-based financing effects were viewed positively on equity in distribution of resources and quality respectively, but both were perceived negatively on their high administrative burden to providers. Ethiopia may consider a more nuanced approach to design blended provider payment to mitigate negative consequences while providing incentives for better quality of care and efficiency.

In response to the failure of community-based health insurance (CBHI) at the municipal level, some African countries are implementing district or departmental CBHIs to improve universal health coverage. After creating two CBHIs at the departmental level in 2014, Senegal launched a campaign to disseminate the model in 2022. This article presents the stakeholders' perspectives on the factors and challenges of scaling up CBHI departmentalization in Senegal. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, utilizing concept mapping and a focus group to examine scaling up departmentalization. The sample size consists of 22 individuals involved in the process. The quantitative analysis includes hierarchical cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling analysis, and the Pearson coefficient test. The qualitative analysis involves content analysis to triangulate the findings. Participants identified 125 factors to consider for the departmentalization of CBHI. They were categorized into nine clusters according to their degree of importance (I) and ease to organize (F): service package (I: 4.07; F: 2,26), communication (I: 4.05; F: 2.96), governance (I: 3.96; F: 2,94), human and logistical resources (I: 3.94; F: 2,82), financing (I: 3.90; F: 2,31), involvement of the authorities (I: 3.82; F: 2.75), community involvement (I: 3.81; F: 2.76), membership (I: 3.70; F: 2.24, strategic planning and implementation (I: 3.57; F: 2,62). The main challenges faced were a process perceived as precipitous and vertical and needing more negotiation and consultation. The conditions for accompaniment and public funding availability need to be sufficiently considered. The study proposes avenues for action to promote the scaling up of CBHI departmentalization in Senegal.

China's ability to sustain the zero-COVID strategy over three years has garnered global attention, but little is known about the factors contributing to its long-term adherence. Based on the political promotion tournament model, this article theorizes that China's strict administrative accountability system, which tied local officials' career prospects to their performance in crucial policy goals, incentivized local governments to sustain COVID-19 policies. Using data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker and major official Chinese media outlets, we performed interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) to examine whether the accountability events affected the local government's COVID-19 responses. Noticeably, our analyses found that from May 4, 2020, to September 30, 2022, when an accountability event happened, officials in the affected (local effects) and unaffected (spillover effects) provinces all increased their containment responses and decreased their economic support responses. This is true even for provinces without new localized outbreaks. The effects of accountability events increased with decreasing geographical distance. These findings remain consistent after several robustness checks. The administrative accountability system is a key institutional factor in implementing China's zero-COVID strategy, which contributed to the global literature about the pandemic policy process in centralized countries.

A new law was voted in France in 2016 to increase cooperation between public sector hospitals. Hospitals were encouraged to work under the leadership of local referral centers and to share their support functions (e.g., information systems) with newly created hospital groups, called "Regional Hospital Groups." The law made it compulsory for each public sector hospital to become affiliated with one of 136 newly created hospital groups. The policy's aim was to ensure that all patients were sent to the hospital best qualified to treat their unique condition, among the hospitals available at the regional level. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether this regionalization policy was associated with changes in observed patterns of patient mobility between hospitals. This nationwide observational study followed an interrupted time series design. For each stay occurring from 2014 to 2019, we ascertained whether or not the stay was followed by mobility toward another hospital within 90 days, and whether or not the receiving hospital was part of the same Regional Hospital Group as the sender hospital. The proportion of mobility directed toward the same regional hospital group increased from 22.9% in 2014 (95% CI 22.7-23.1) to 24.6% in 2019 (95% CI 24.4-24.8). However, the absence of discontinuity during the policy change year was consistent with the hypothesis of a preexisting trend toward regionalization. Therefore, the policy did not achieve major changes in patterns of mobility between hospitals. Other objectives of the reform, including long-term consequences on the healthcare offer, remain to be assessed.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has been institutionalized in Ghana with structures, processes, and methods. This paper identifies and analyzes the policy players involved; the way in which issues were framed; and the manner in which administrative structures were used to set the agenda for, adopt, and implement HTA. It shows that the Ministry of Health, supported by other players, led HTA agenda-setting through training activities and discussions on evidence of selection pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other health-related technologies. HTA was then captured in a health sector aide memoire that summarized the decisions made at a national health summit. In implementing the HTA policy, technical working groups and a steering committee were constituted to provide recommendations to the minister of health on high-level decisions. The ability of agenda influencers to maneuver existing administrative and bureaucratic structures, align them with national strategic goals, and sustain HTA implementation enabled Ghana to institutionalize HTA. Limited financial support and a dearth of in-country expertise are being addressed through capacity building and funding. To ensure early national buy-in and uptake, policy makers and agenda influencers need to understand each country's health system and align HTA with national policy decision-making processes.

In the pursuit of universal health coverage, countries are invariably confronted with questions about which services to pay with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Such priority-setting processes have major ramifications for the costs and benefits of care delivered. These processes are not just technical, but also highly political and organizational in nature and expressions of social values. This special issue focuses on building institutions for priority setting in health. These institutions serve a public purpose and are primarily concerned with conducting or using health technology assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. We first define the concept of institutions for priority setting in health and the methodological considerations of assessing and evaluating these institutions. Next, we present key common themes and summarize key messages across the articles, including lessons learned and future challenges in building these institutions.

The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) was established in 2007. This article highlights 15 lessons from over 15 years of experience, noting five achievements about what HITAP has done well, five areas that it is currently working on, and five aims for work in the future. HITAP built capacity for HTA and linked research to policy and practice in Thailand. With collaborators from academic and policy spheres, HITAP has mobilized regional and global support, and developed global public goods to enhance the field of HTA. HITAP's semi-autonomous structure has facilitated these changes, though they have not been without their challenges. HITAP aims to continue its work on HTA for public health interventions and disinvestments, effectively engaging with stakeholders and strategically managing its human resources. Moving forward, HITAP will develop and update global public goods on HTA, work on emerging topics such as early HTA, address issues in digital health, real-world evidence and equity, support HTA development globally, particularly in low-income settings, and seek to engage more effectively with the public. HITAP seeks to learn from its experience and invest in the areas identified so that it can grow sustainably. Its journey may be relevant to other countries and institutions that are interested in developing HTA programs.

This study charts the chronological developments of the three institutions that were established in South Korea for priority setting in health. In 2007, the Evidence-based Medicine Team and the Center for New Health Technology Assessment (CnHTA) were established and nested in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In December 2008, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) was launched, to which the CnHTA was transferred in 2010. Since then, non-drug technologies have been reviewed by NECA and drugs have been reviewed by HIRA. Political debates about how to embrace expensive but important health technologies that were not on the benefits list led to the creation of the Participatory Priority Setting Committee (PPSC) in 2012. The PPSC, led by the general public, has played a key role in advancing the path toward universal health coverage by revitalizing the list of essential, yet previously overlooked, medical technologies. PPSC offers these technologies a second chance at coverage. HIRA and NECA served to strengthen evidence-based and efficiency-based decision-making in the health system via CnHTA, and PPSC served to strengthen social value-based decision making via priority setting in Korea. The reassessment by PPSC may be relevant in countries where the economy is growing and citizens want to rapidly expand the benefits list.

There is global interest in institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. However, institutionalization of HTA remains limited particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. We conducted this scoping review to synthesize evidence on factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA at the macro (national)-level across countries globally. We searched for relevant literature in six databases namely PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, EconLit, and Google Scholar. We conducted the last search on December 31, 2021. We identified 77 articles that described factors that influence institutionalization of HTA across 135 high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We analyzed these articles thematically. We identified five sets of factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA across countries of different income levels. These factors include: (1) organizational resources such as organizational structures, and skilled human, financial, and information resources; (2) legal frameworks, policies, and guidelines for HTA; (3) learning and advocacy for HTA; (4) stakeholder-related factors such as stakeholders' interests, awareness, and understanding; and (5) collaborative support for HTA through international networks and non-governmental and multi-lateral organizations. Countries seeking to institutionalize HTA should map the availability of the factors identified in this review. Developing these factors wherever necessary can influence a country's capacity to institutionalize the conduct and use of HTA.