Health systems and reform最新文献

Strategic purchasing is noted in the literature as an approach that can improve the efficiency of health spending, increase equity in access to health care services, improve the quality of health care delivery, and advance progress toward universal health coverage. However, the evidence on how strategic purchasing can achieve these improvements is sparse. This narrative review sought to address this evidence gap and provide decision makers with lessons and policy recommendations. The authors conducted a systematic review based on two research questions: 1) What is the evidence on how purchasing functions affect purchasers' leverage to improve: resource allocation, incentives, and accountability; intermediate results (allocative and technical efficiency); and health system outcomes (improvements in equity, access, quality, and financial protection)? and 2) What conditions are needed for a country to make progress on strategic purchasing and achieve health system outcomes? We used database searches to identify published literature relevant to these research questions, and we coded the themes that emerged, in line with the purchasing functions-benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring-and the outcomes of interest. The extent to which strategic purchasing affects the outcomes of interest in different settings is partly influenced by how the purchasing functions are designed and implemented, the enabling environment (both economic and political), and the level of development of the country's health system and infrastructure. For strategic purchasing to provide more value, sufficient public funding and pooling to reduce fragmentation of schemes is important.

Kenya has implemented several health purchasing reforms to facilitate progress toward universal health coverage. We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed and grey literature to examine how these reforms have affected health system outcomes in terms of equity, access, quality of care, and financial protection. We categorized the purchasing reforms we identified into the areas of benefits specification, provider payment, and performance monitoring. We found that the introduction and expansion of benefit packages for maternity, outpatient, and specialized services improved responsiveness to population needs and enhanced protection from financial hardship. However, access to service entitlements was limited by inadequate awareness of the covered services among providers and lack of service availability at contracted facilities. Provider payment reforms increased health facilities' access to funds, which enhanced service delivery, quality of care, and staff motivation. But delays and the perceived inadequacy of payment rates incentivized negative provider behavior, which limited access to care and exposed patients to out-of-pocket payments. We found that performance monitoring reforms improved the quality assurance capacity of the public insurer and enhanced patient safety, service utilization, and quality of care provided by facilities. Although health purchasing reforms have improved access, quality of care, and financial risk protection to some extent in Kenya, they should be aligned and implemented jointly rather than as individual interventions. Measures that policymakers might consider include strengthening communication of health benefits, timely and adequate payment of providers, and enhancing health facility autonomy over the revenues they generate.

Well-functioning purchasing arrangements allocate pooled funds to health providers, and are expected to deliver efficient, effective, quality, equitable and responsive health services and advance progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). This paper explores how improvements in purchasing functions in three Nigerian schemes-the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Program (FSSHIP), the Saving One Million Lives Program for Results (SOML PforR), and Enugu State's Free Maternal and Child Health Program (FMCHP)-may have contributed to better resource allocation, incentives for performance, greater accountability and improved service delivery. The paper uses a case-study approach, with data analyzed using the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework. Data were collected through review of program documents and published research articles, and semi-structured interviews of 33 key informant interviews. Findings were triangulated within each case study across the multiple sources of information. Improvements in benefits specification and provider payment contributed to some service delivery improvements in all three schemes: higher satisfaction with the quality of care in FSSHIP; increased use of insecticide-treated nets; greater prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission; expanded pentavalent-3 coverage in SOML PforR; and greater service utilization in FMCHP. Resource allocation to public health facilities was enhanced and lines of accountability were better defined. These scheme-level improvements have not translated to system change, because of the small amount of funding flowing through these schemes and the high level of health financing fragmentation. The institutionalization of strategic purchasing in Nigeria to advance UHC will require raising awareness among decision makers, strengthening purchasing agencies' capacity, and reducing fragmentation.

The most effective way to finance universal health coverage (UHC) is through compulsory prepaid funds that flow through the government budget. Public funds-including on-budget donor resources-allow for pooling and allocation of resources to providers in a way that aligns with population health needs. This is particularly important for low-income settings with fiscal constraints. While much attention is paid to innovative sources of additional financing for UHC and to implementing strategic purchasing approaches, the government budget will continue to be the main source of health financing in most countries-and the most stable mechanism for channeling additional funds. The government budget should therefore be front and center on the strategic purchasing agenda. This commentary uses lessons from Tanzania and Uganda to demonstrate that more can be done to use the government budget as a vehicle for making health purchasing more strategic, across all phases of the budget cycle, and for making greater progress toward UHC. Actions need to be accompanied by measures to address bottlenecks in the public financial management system.

Embodied in the goals of universal health coverage (UHC) are societal norms about ethics, equity, solidarity, and social justice. As African countries work toward UHC, it is important for their governments to use all available resources, knowledge, and networks to continue to bring this goal closer to reality for their populations. The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) was established in 2018 as a "go-to" source of Africa-based expertise in strategic health purchasing, which is a critical policy tool for making more effective use of limited funds for UHC. SPARC facilitates collaboration among governments and research partners across Africa to fill gaps in knowledge on how to make progress on strategic purchasing. The cornerstone of this work has been the development and use of the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework to garner insights from each country's efforts to make health purchasing more strategic. Application of the framework and subsequent dialogue within and between countries generated lessons on effective purchasing approaches that other countries can apply as they chart their own course to use strategic purchasing more effectively. These lessons include the need to clarify the roles of purchasing agencies, define explicit benefit packages as a precondition for other strategic purchasing functions, use contracting to set expectations, start simple with provider payment and avoid open-ended payment mechanisms, and use collaborative rather than punitive provider performance monitoring. SPARC has also facilitated learning on the "how-to" and practical steps countries can take to make progress on strategic purchasing to advance UHC.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have implemented performance-based financing (PBF) to improve health system performance. Much of the debate and analysis relating to PBF has focused on whether PBF "works"-that is, whether it leads to improvements in indicators tied to incentive-based payments. Because PBF schemes embody key elements of strategic health purchasing, this study examines the question of whether and how PBF programs in sub-Saharan Africa influence strategic purchasing more broadly within country health financing arrangements. We searched PubMed, Scopus, EconLit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Google, and the World Health Organization and World Bank's repositories for studies that focused on the implementation experience or effects of PBF in sub-Saharan African and published in English from 2000 to 2020. We identified 44 papers and used framework analysis to analyze the data and generate key findings. The evidence we reviewed shows that PBF has the potential to raise awareness about strategic purchasing, improve governance and institutional arrangements, and strengthen strategic purchasing functions. However, these effects are minimal in practice because PBF has been introduced as narrow, often pilot, projects that run parallel to and have little integration with the mainstream health financing system. We concluded that PBF has not systematically transformed health purchasing in countries in sub-Saharan Africa but that the experience with PBF can provide valuable lessons for how system-wide strategic purchasing can be implemented most effectively in that region-either in countries that currently have PBF schemes and aim to integrate them into broader purchasing systems, or in countries that are not currently implementing PBF. We also concluded that for countries to pursue more holistic approaches to strategic health purchasing and achieve better health outcomes, they need to implement health financing reforms within or aligned with existing financing systems.

Despite limited government budgets for health in many sub-Saharan African countries, some countries have improved health outcomes at low cost by being strategic in allocating and spending available resources. Strategic health purchasing is receiving increasing attention as a way to improve health system performance within financial constraints. Health purchasing, one of the health financing functions of health systems, is the transfer of pooled funds to health providers to deliver covered services. Strategic health purchasing uses evidence and information about population health needs and health provider performance to make decisions about which health services should have priority for public funding, which providers will provide these services, and how and how much providers will be paid to deliver those services. Strategic purchasing has enabled some countries to make progress on health sector goals while improving efficiency, equity, transparency, and accountability. However, when countries have high levels of corruption and low levels of accountability, as in Nigeria, strategic purchasing may be less effective and more money for health may not yield the expected public health benefits. This commentary uses the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework developed by the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) and its technical partners to examine health purchasing functions in Nigeria's main health financing schemes, how corruption affects the effectiveness of health purchasing in Nigeria, and opportunities to use strategic purchasing as a tool to address corruption in health financing by improving the transparency and accountability of health resource allocation and use.

Strategic health purchasing is a key strategy in Burkina Faso to spur progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). However, a comprehensive analysis of existing health financing arrangements and their purchasing functions has not been undertaken to date. This article provides an in-depth analysis of five key health financing schemes in Burkina Faso: Gratuité (a national free health care program for women and children under age 5), crédits délégués (delegated credits), crédits transférés (transfers to municipalities), community-based health insurance, and occupation-based health insurance. This study involved a document review and complementary key informant interviews using the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework developed by the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC). Data were collected using the framework's accompanying Microsoft Excel-based tool. We analyzed the data manually to examine and identify the strengths and weaknesses of governance arrangements and purchasing functions and capacities. The study provides insight into areas that are working well from a strategic purchasing perspective and, more importantly, areas that need more attention. Areas for improvement include low financial and managerial autonomy for some schemes, weak accountability measures, lack of explicit quality standards for contracting and for service delivery, budget overruns and late provider payment, provider payment that is not linked to provider performance, fragmented health information systems, and information generated is not linked to purchasing decisions. Improvements in purchasing functions are required to address shortcomings while consolidating achievements. This study will inform next steps for Burkina Faso to improve purchasing and advance progress toward UHC.