International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume:8 Issue: 11, Nov 2019

Adults with pediatric-onset medical conditions (POMCs) are susceptible to early development of high-burden medical conditions. However, research pertaining to this topic is lacking, which is vital information that could assist in health benefit planning and administration. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of high-burden medical conditions among privately and publicly insured adults with POMCs, as compared to adults without POMCs, from the US. Data from 2016 were extracted from Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart (private insurance) and a random 20% sample from Medicare fee-for-service (public insurance). International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes were used to identify 18–64-year-old beneficiaries with POMCs, as well as several high-burden medical conditions, including pain, fracture, mood affective disorders, anxiety disorders, ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertensive and other cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, liver diseases, and cancer. Privately and publicly insured adults with POMCs had higher prevalence of all medical conditions compared to adults without POMCs. Publicly insured adults with POMCs had higher prevalence of all medical conditions compared to privately insured adults with POMCs, except for the lower prevalence of pain and cancer. When stratified by the category of POMCs (eg, musculoskeletal, circulatory), privately and publicly insured groups tended to have higher prevalence of most (private) or all (public) medical conditions compared to adults without POMCs. Adults with POMCs have higher prevalence of several high-burden medical conditions compared to adults without POMCs. This health disparity was present regardless of insurance coverage, but was generally more pronounced for public vs. private insured adults with POMCs.

Nepal has made remarkable efforts towards social health protection over the past several years. In 2016, the Government of Nepal introduced a National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) with an aim to ensure equitable and universal access to healthcare by all Nepalese citizens. Following the first year of operation, the scheme has covered 5 percent of its target population. There are wider concerns regarding the capacity of NHIP to achieve adequate population coverage and remain viable. In this context, this study aimed to identify the factors associated with enrolment of households in the NHIP.

A cross-sectional household survey using face to face interview was carried out in 2 Palikas (municipalities) of Ilam district. 570 households were studied by recruiting equal number of NHIP enrolled and non-enrolled households. We used Pearson’s chi-square test and binary logistic regression to identify the factors associated with household’s enrolment in NHIP. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 23 software.

Enrolment of households in NHIP was found to be associated with ethnicity, socio-economic status, past experience of acute illness in family and presence of chronic illness. The households that belonged to higher socio-economic status were about 4 times more likely to enrol in the scheme. It was also observed that households from privileged ethnic groups such as Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung, and Newar were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in NHIP compared to those from underprivileged ethnic groups such as janajatis (indigenous people) and dalits (the oppressed). The households with illness experience in 3 months preceding the survey were about 1.5 times more likely to enrol in NHIP compared to households that did not have such experience. Similarly, households in which at least one of the members was chronically ill were 1.8 times more likely to enrol compared to households with no chronic illness.

Belonging to the privileged ethnic group, having a higher socio-economic status, experiencing an acute illness and presence of chronically ill member in the family are the factors associated with enrolment of households in NHIP. This study revealed gaps in enrolment between rich-poor households and privileged-underprivileged ethnic groups. Extension of health insurance coverage to poor and marginalized households is therefore needed to increase equity and accelerate the pace towards achieving universal health coverage.

A motivated workforce is necessary to ensure the delivery of high quality health services. In developing countries, performance-based financing (PBF) is often employed to increase motivation by providing financial incentives linked to performance. However, given PBF schemes are usually funded by donors, their long-term financing is not always assured, and the effects of withdrawing PBF on motivation are largely unknown. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify differences in motivation between workers who recently had donor-funded PBF withdrawn, with workers who had not received PBF.

Quantitative data were collected from 485 health workers in 5 provinces using a structured survey containing questions on motivation which were based on an established motivation framework. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify dimensions of motivation, and multiple regression to assess differences in motivation scores between workers who had previously received PBF and those who never had. Qualitative interviews were also carried out in Kasai Occidental province with 16 nurses who had previously or never received PBF.

The results indicated that workers in facilities where PBF had been removed scored significantly lower on most dimensions of motivation compared to workers who had never received PBF. The removal of the PBF scheme was blamed for an exodus of staff due to the dramatic reduction in income, and negatively impacted on relationships between staff and the local community.

Donors and governments unable to sustain PBF or other donor-payments should have clear exit strategies and institute measures to mitigate any adverse effects on motivation following withdrawal.

Corruption in health systems is a problem around the world. Prior research consistently shows that corruption is detrimental to population health. Yet public health professionals are slow to address this complicated issue on a global scale. In the editorial entitled “We Need to Talk About Corruption in Health Systems” concern with the general lack of discourse on this topic amongst health professionals is highlighted. In this invited commentary three contributing factors that hamper public dialogue on corruption are discussed. These include (i) corrupt acts are often not illegal, (ii) government and medical professionals continued acceptance of corruption in the health systems, and (iii) lack of awareness within the general public on the extent of the problem. It is advocated that a global movement that is fully inclusive needs to occur to eradicate corruption.

Lehoux et al provide a timely and relevant turn on the broad and ongoing discussion around the introduction of health technology and innovation. More specifically, the authors suggest a demand-driven approach to health innovation that starts from identifying challenges and demands at the health system level. In this commentary, I review a number of underlying implications of their study in relation to positions of technology push and techno-optimism, and to the narrow focus on health technology assessment on economic and clinical values. While Lehoux et al’s scoping review provides very relevant insights with the potential to drive further empirical research, it is less clear about its conceptual basis. In particular, the somewhat artificial distinction between health innovations and health systems is worth further scrutiny. I discuss some potential risks of this separation, and propose to more openly address the co-constitution of health, health systems and technology in future research along the lines suggested by Lehoux et al.

Corruption in the health sector has been a “dirty secret” in the health policy and international development community, but recent global activities point to a day when it will no longer be neglected as a key determinant of health. To further explore next steps forward, this commentary applies the Kingdon’s multiple-streams framework (MSF) to assess what opportunities are available to mobilize the global agenda to combat health corruption. Based on this analysis, it appears that Kingdon’s problem, policy, and political streams are coalescing to create a policy window opportunity that can be leveraged based on recent developments in the global health and international development community around corruption. This includes the recent formation of the Global Network on Anti-Corruption, Transparency and Accountability (GNACTA) led by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Global Fund, and the United Nations Development Programme in 2019. It also includes bridging shared goals of addressing corruption in order to make progress towards health-specific goals in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and for achieving universal health coverage.

This commentary while agreeing broadly with the points raised by the editorial by McKee et al, seeks to broaden and deepen those arguments. The commentary contends that unless we understand corruption as deeply embedded in and propping up systems of power differentials, we will not be able to design interventions that will tackle corruption at its roots. The commentary further points to the context specific nature of corruption and hence the futility of attempting a single definition. This it contends will merely hide the deeper context specific causes. It calls for the using theoretical insights that draw from post-positivist approaches to enhance the conceptualization of corruption as systemic. Further it points to the importance of the underlying problematization of corruption in attempts to tackle it. It ends with a call for attempts at multiple levels with the broader aim of evolving caring and just systems of healthcare rather than focusing on narrow ‘politically feasible’ interventions.