جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « universal health coverage (uhc) » در نشریات گروه « پزشکی »

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been exhausting the entire global economy. As the greatest challenge to sustainable development in all societies and health systems, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and their relevant risk factors are the main causes of illness and death during the 21st century in high, middle, and low-income countries (LMICs). NCDs are also among the main underlying causes of death among COVID-19 patients in many countries. People living with or affected by NCDs (PLWANCDs) are more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with COVID-19. Although the ongoing pandemic will be a fundamental game-changer for prioritization and resource allocation in many countries in years to come, ample evidence indicates that NCDs will remain the main killer of people and the costliest barrier to sustainable societies. Looking through the lenses of universal health coverage (UHC), this paper advocates rebuilding our world during COVID-19 aftermath, in a way to harmonize efforts to live with pandemics and make our health systems resilient, balanced, and comprehensive enough to accommodate all threats to humanity, including both communicable and noncommuincable diseases.

BackgroundPurchasing refers to the process by which pooled funds are paid to providers in order to deliver a set of health care interventions. Very little is known about purchasing arrangements in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and certainly not in Kenya. This study aimed to critically analyse purchasing arrangements in Kenya, using the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) as a case study.
MethodsWe applied a principal-agent relationship framework, which identifies three pairs of principal-agent relationships (government-purchaser, purchaser-provider, and citizen-purchaser) and specific actions required within them to achieve strategic purchasing. A qualitative case study approach was applied. Data were collected through document reviews (statutes, policy and regulatory documents) and in-depth interviews (n = 62) with key informants including NHIF officials, Ministry of Health (MoH) officials, insurance industry actors, and health service providers. Documents were summarised using standardised forms. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a thematic framework approach.
ResultsThe regulatory and policy framework for strategic purchasing in Kenya was weak and there was no clear accountability mechanism between the NHIF and the MoH. Accountability mechanisms within the NHIF have developed over time, but these emphasized financial performance over other aspects of purchasing. The processes for contracting, monitoring, and paying providers do not promote equity, quality, and efficiency. This was partly due to geographical distribution of providers, but also due to limited capacity within the NHIF. There are some mechanisms for assessing needs, preferences, and values to inform design of the benefit package, and while channels to engage beneficiaries exist, they do not always function appropriately and awareness of these channels to the beneficiaries is limited.
ConclusionAddressing the gaps in the NHIF’s purchasing performance requires a number of approaches. Critically, there is a need for the government through the MoH to embrace its stewardship role in health, while recognizing the multiplicity of actors given Kenya’s devolved context. Relatively recent decentralisation reforms present an opportunity that should be grasped to rewrite the contract between the government, the NHIF and Kenyans in the pursuit of universal health coverage (UHC).

The revision of health benefits package is considered a potential policy for making reforms in the healthcare system. However, limited studies have been carried out on the concept of revising health benefits packages and finding applicable levers to effective revision and also determining the characteristics of a desirable model. This paper investigates the concept and the levers in revising the health benefits package and also suggests the characteristics of desirable model.

In an editorial published in this journal, Baltussen et al argue that information on cost-effectiveness is not sufficient for priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC), a claim which is correct as far as it goes. However, their focus on the procedural legitimacy of ‘micro’ priority setting processes (eg, decisions concerning the reimbursement of specific interventions), and their related assumption that values for priority setting are determined only at this level, leads them to ignore the relevance of higher level, ‘macro’ priority setting processes, for example, consultations held by World Health Organization (WHO) Member States and other global stakeholders that have resulted in widespread consensus on the principles of UHC. Priority setting is not merely about discrete choices, nor should the focus be exclusively (or even mainly) on improving the procedural elements of micro priority setting processes. Systemic activities that shape the health system environment, such as strategic planning, as well as the substantive content of global policy instruments, are critical elements for priority setting for UHC.

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.

A recent editorial by Naoki Ikegami has proposed three key lessons from Japan’s experience of achieving virtually universal coverage with primary healthcare services: the need to integrate the existing providers of primary healthcare services into the organised health system; the need to limit government commitments to finance hospital services and the need to empower providers of primary healthcare to influence decisions that influence their livelihoods. Although the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) differs in many ways from Japan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the lesson that short-term initiatives to achieve universal coverage need to be complemented by an understanding of the factors influencing long-term change management remains highly relevant.

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

This article provides a commentary to Ole Norheim’ s editorial entitled “Ethical perspective: Five unacceptable trade-offs on the path to universal health coverage.” It reinforces its message that an inclusive, participatory process is essential for ethical decision-making and underlines the crucial importance of good governance in setting fair priorities in healthcare. Solidarity on both national and international levels is needed to make progress towards the goal of universal health coverage (UHC).

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) World Health Report 2010, “Health systems financing, the path to universal coverage,” promoted universal health coverage (UHC) as an aspirational objective for country health systems. Yet, in addition to the dimensions of services and coverage, distribution of coverage in the population, and financial risk protection highlighted by the report, the consideration of the budget constraint should be further strengthened in the ensuing debate on resource allocation toward UHC. Beyond the substantial financial constraints faced by low- and middle-income countries, additional considerations, such as the geographical context, the underlying country infrastructure, and the architecture of health systems, determine the feasibility, effectiveness, quality and cost of healthcare delivery. Therefore, increased production and use of local evidence tied to the criteria of health benefits, equity, financial risk protection, and costs accompanying health delivery are needed so that to highlight pathways and acceptable trade-offs toward UHC.

Binagwaho and colleagues’ perspective piece provided a timely reflection on the experience of Rwanda in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and a proposal of 5 principles to carry forward in post-2015 health development. This commentary echoes their viewpoints and offers three lessons for health policy reforms consistent with these principles beyond 2015. Specifically, we argue that universal health coverage (UHC) is an integrated solution to advance the global health development agenda, and the three essential strategies drawn from Asian countries’ health reforms toward UHC are: (1) Public financing support and sequencing health insurance expansion by first extending health insurance to the extremely poor, vulnerable, and marginalized population are critical for achieving UHC; (2) Improved quality of delivered care ensures supply-side readiness and effective coverage; (3) Strategic purchasing and results-based financing creates incentives and accountability for positive changes. These strategies were discussed and illustrated with experience from China and other Asian economies.

The world has made a great deal of progress through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to improve the health and well-being of people around the globe, but there remains a long way to go. Here we provide reflections on Rwanda’s experience in working to meet the health-related targets of the MDGs. This experience has informed our proposal of five guiding principles that may be useful for countries to consider as the world sets and moves forward with the post-2015 development agenda. These include: 1) advancing concrete and meaningful equity agendas that drive the post-2015 goals; 2) ensuring that goals to meet Universal Health Coverage (UHC) incorporate real efforts to focus on improving quality and not only quantity of care; 3) bolstering education and the internal research capacity within countries so that they can improve local evidence-based policy-making; 4) promoting intersectoral collaboration to achieve goals, and 5) improving collaborations between multilateral agencies – that are helping to monitor and evaluate progress towards the goals that are set – and the countries that are working to achieve improvements in health within their nation and across the world

The focus on public policy and health equity is discussed in reference to the current global health policy discussion on Universal Health Coverage (UHC). This initiative has strong commitment from the leadership of the international organizations involved, but a lack of policy clarity outside of the health financing component may limit the initiative’s impact on health inequity. In order to address health inequities there needs to be greater focus on the most vulnerable communities, subnational health systems, and attention paid to how communities, civil society and the private sector engage and participate in health systems.

Out of eight commonly agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDG), six are related to the attainment of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) throughout the globe. This universalization of health status suggests policies to narrow the gap in access and benefit sharing between different socially and economically underprivileged classes with that of the better placed ones and a consequent expansion of subsidized healthcare appears to be a common feature for most of the developing nations. The National Health Policy in India (2002) suggests expansion of market-based care for the affording class and subsidized care for the deserving class of the society. So, the benefit distribution of this limited public support in health sector is important to examine to study the welfare consequences of the policy. This paper examines the nature of utilization to inpatient care by different socio-economic groups across regions and gender in West Bengal (WB), India. The benefit incidence of public subsidies across these socio-economic groups has also been verified for different types of services like medicines, diagnostics and professional care etc. National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) has collected information on all hospitalized cases (60th round, 2004) with a recall period of 365 days from the sampled households through stratified random sampling technique. The data has been used to assess utilization of healthcare services during hospitalization and the distribution of public subsidies among the patients of different socio-economic background; a Benefit Incidence Analysis (BIA) has also been carried out. Analysis shows that though the rate of utilization of public hospitals is quite high, other complementary services like medicine, doctor and diagnostic tests are mostly purchased from private market. This leads to high Out-of-Pocket (OOP) expenditure. Moreover, BIA reveals that the public subsidies are mostly enjoyed by the relatively better placed patients, both socially and economically. The worse situation is observed for gender related inequality in access and benefit from public subsidies in the state. Focused policies are required to ensure proper distribution of public subsidies to arrest high OOP expenditure. Drastic change in policy targeting is needed to secure equity without compromising efficiency.