Kara Hanson

What can be done about the private health sector in low-income countries?

A very large private health sector exists in low-income countries. It consists of a great variety of providers and is used by a wide cross-section of the population. There are substantial concerns about the quality of care given, especially at the more informal end of the range of providers. This is particularly true for diseases of public health importance such as tuberculosis, malaria, and sexually transmitted infections. How can the activities of the private sector in these countries be influenced so that they help to meet national health objectives? Although the evidence base is not good, there is a fair amount of information on the types of intervention that are most successful in directly influencing the behaviour of providers and on what might be the necessary conditions for success. There is much less evidence, however, of effective approaches to interventions on the demand side and policies that involve strengthening the purchasing and regulatory roles of governments.

To Retain or Remove User Fees?: Reflections on the Current Debate in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Many low- and middle-income countries continue to search for better ways of financing their health systems. Common to many of these systems are problems of inadequate resource mobilisation, as well as inefficient and inequitable use of existing resources. The poor and other vulnerable groups who need healthcare the most are also the most affected by these shortcomings. In particular, these groups have a high reliance on user fees and other out-of-pocket expenditures on health which are both impoverishing and provide a financial barrier to care.It is within this context, and in light of recent policy initiatives on user fee removal, that a debate on the role of user fees in health financing systems has recently returned. This paper provides some reflections on the recent user fees debate, drawing from the evidence presented and subsequent discussions at a recent UNICEF consultation on user fees in the health sector, and relates the debate to the wider issue of access to adequate healthcare. It is argued that, from the wealth of evidence on user fees and other health system reforms, a broad consensus is emerging. First, user fees are an important barrier to accessing health services, especially for poor people. They also negatively impact on adherence to long-term expensive treatments. However, this is offset to some extent by potentially positive impacts on quality. Secondly, user fees are not the only barrier that the poor face. As well as other cost barriers, a number of quality, information and cultural barriers must also be overcome before the poor can access adequate health services. Thirdly, initial evidence on fee abolition in Uganda suggests that this policy has improved access to outpatient services for the poor. For this to be sustainable and effective in reaching the poor, fee removal needs to be part of a broader package of reforms that includes increased budgets to offset lost fee revenue (as was the case in Uganda). Fourthly, implementation matters: if fees are to be abolished, this needs clear communication with a broad stakeholder buy-in, careful monitoring to ensure that official fees are not replaced by informal fees, and appropriate management of the alternative financing mechanisms that are replacing user fees. Fifthly, context is crucial. For instance, immediate fee removal in Cambodia would be inappropriate, given that fees replaced irregular and often high informal fees. In this context, equity funds and eventual expansion of health insurance are perhaps more viable policy options. Conversely, in countries where user fees have had significant adverse effects on access and generated only limited benefits, fee abolition is probably a more attractive policy option.Removing user fees has the potential to improve access to health services, especially for the poor, but it is not appropriate in all contexts. Analysis should move on from broad evaluations of user fees towards exploring how best to dismantle the multiple barriers to access in specific contexts.

Achieving universal coverage with health interventions

Cost-effective public health interventions are not reaching developing country populations who need them. Programmes to deliver these interventions are too often patchy, low quality, inequitable, and short-lived. We review the challenges of going to scale, building on known, effective interventions to achieve universal coverage. One challenge is to choose interventions consistent with the epidemiological profile of the population. A second is to plan for context-specific delivery mechanisms effective in going to scale, and to avoid uniform approaches. A third is to develop innovative delivery mechanisms that move incrementally along the vertical-to-horizontal axis as health systems gain capacity in service delivery. The availability of sufficient funds is essential, but constraints to reaching universal coverage go well beyond financial issues. Accurate estimates of resource requirements need a full understanding of the factors that limit intervention delivery. Sound decisions need to be made about the choice of delivery mechanisms, the sequence of action, and the pace at which services can be expanded. Strong health systems are required, and the time frames and funding cycles of national and international agencies are often unrealistically short.

Is malaria a disease of poverty? A review of the literature

Objective  To review the evidence on the link between malaria and poverty.

Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science matters.

In the second in a series of articles addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR), Lucy Gilson and colleagues argue the importance of insights from the social sciences.

Building the field of health policy and systems research: framing the questions

In the first of a series of articles addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy & Systems Research (HPSR), Kabir Sheikh and colleagues lay out the main questions vexing the field.

How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country.

Understanding the preferences of patients and health professionals is useful for health policy and planning. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences that can be used in the absence of revealed preference data. The method involves asking individuals to state their preference over hypothetical alternative scenarios, goods or services. Each alternative is described by several attributes and the responses are used to determine whether preferences are significantly influenced by the attributes and also their relative importance. DCEs are widely used in high-income contexts and are increasingly being applied in low- and middle-income countries to consider a range of policy concerns. This paper aims to provide an introduction to DCEs for policy-makers and researchers with little knowledge of the technique. We outline the stages involved in undertaking a DCE, with an emphasis on the design considerations applicable in a low-income setting.

Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature.

BackgroundThere has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low- and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor.MethodsThe search topic of the systematic literature review was the effectiveness of interventions working with the private for-profit sector to improve utilization of quality health services by the poor. Interventions included social marketing, use of vouchers, pre-packaging of drugs, franchising, training, regulation, accreditation and contracting-out. The search for published literature used a series of electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, HMIC and CabHealth Global Health. The search for grey and unpublished literature used documents available on the World Wide Web. We focused on studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on utilization and/or quality of services and which provided information on the socioeconomic status of the beneficiary populations.ResultsA total of 2483 references were retrieved, of which 52 qualified as impact evaluations. Data were available on the average socioeconomic status of recipient communities for 5 interventions, and on the distribution of benefits across socioeconomic groups for 5 interventions.ConclusionFew studies provided evidence on the impact of private sector interventions on quality and/or utilization of care by the poor. It was, however, evident that many interventions have worked successfully in poor communities and positive equity impacts can be inferred from interventions that work with types of providers predominantly used by poor people. Better evidence of the equity impact of interventions working with the private sector is needed for more robust conclusions to be drawn.

Effect of the Affordable Medicines Facility--malaria (AMFm) on the availability, price, and market share of quality-assured artemisinin-based combination therapies in seven countries: a before-and-after analysis of outlet survey data.

BACKGROUND Malaria is one of the greatest causes of mortality worldwide. Use of the most effective treatments for malaria remains inadequate for those in need, and there is concern over the emergence of resistance to these treatments. In 2010, the Global Fund launched the Affordable Medicines Facility--malaria (AMFm), a series of national-scale pilot programmes designed to increase the access and use of quality-assured artemisinin based combination therapies (QAACTs) and reduce that of artemisinin monotherapies for treatment of malaria. AMFm involves manufacturer price negotiations, subsidies on the manufacturer price of each treatment purchased, and supporting interventions such as communications campaigns. We present findings on the effect of AMFm on QAACT price, availability, and market share, 6-15 months after the delivery of subsidised ACTs in Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania (including Zanzibar). METHODS We did nationally representative baseline and endpoint surveys of public and private sector outlets that stock antimalarial treatments. QAACTs were identified on the basis of the Global Funds quality assurance policy. Changes in availability, price, and market share were assessed against specified success benchmarks for 1 year of AMFm implementation. Key informant interviews and document reviews recorded contextual factors and the implementation process. FINDINGS In all pilots except Niger and Madagascar, there were large increases in QAACT availability (25·8-51·9 percentage points), and market share (15·9-40·3 percentage points), driven mainly by changes in the private for-profit sector. Large falls in median price for QAACTs per adult equivalent dose were seen in the private for-profit sector in six pilots, ranging from US

Got ACTs? Availability, price, market share and provider knowledge of anti-malarial medicines in public and private sector outlets in six malaria-endemic countries

1·28 to