This article examines how HIV policies and the funding priorities of global institutions affect practices in prenatal clinics and the quality of healthcare women receive. Data consist of observations at health centres in Lilongwe, Malawi and 37 interviews with providers. The author argues that a neoliberal ideology structuring global health produces a fragmented healthcare system on the ground. He found two kinds of healthcare practices within the same clinic: firstly externally funded non government organisations (NGOs) took on HIV services while government providers focused on prenatal care. NGO practices were defined by surveillance, where providers targeted a limited number of pregnant HIV positive women and intensively monitored their adherence to drug treatment. In contrast, state-led practices were defined by inclusion and rationing. Government providers worked with all pregnant women, but with staff and resource shortages, they limited time and services for each patient in order to serve everyone. The author concludes that global health priorities produce different conditions, practices and outcomes between externally funded NGO and state-led care.
Resource allocation and health financing
The 2018 global health financing report presents health spending data for all WHO Member States between 2000 and 2016. It shows a transformation trajectory for the global spending on health, with increasing domestic public funding and declining external financing. This report also presents, for the first time, spending on primary health care and specific diseases and looks closely at the relationship between spending and service coverage. The report presents key messages: Global trends in health spending confirm the transformation of the world’s funding of health services; domestic spending on health is central to universal health coverage, but there is no clear trend of increased government priority for health. Primary health care is a priority for expenditure tracking but Government spending accounts for less than 40% of primary health care spending. Allocations across disease and interventions differ between external and government sources. External funding to combat HIV/AIDS does not have a clear relationship with national prevalence or income level. The report argues that the extent of financial protection of individuals is closely associated with government spending on health.
This investment case describes how a stronger, more efficient and results oriented WHO can serve and guide governments and partners in their efforts to improve the health of their populations and to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3. The five years to 2023 will determine whether the world will achieve the health- related SDGs. WHO aims to achieve: One billion more people benefiting from Universal Health Coverage through improving access to quality essential health services, ensuring sustainable financing and availability of essential medicines, through qualified workforces, better governances and monitoring; One billion more people better protected from Health Emergencies through increasing preparedness, prevention, detection and response; One billion more people enjoying Better Health and Well-Being. Further, WHO commits to address specific health challenges through; improving human capital across the life course, noncommunicable disease prevention and mental health promotion, elimination and eradication of high-impact communicable diseases, tackling antimicrobial resistance and ensuring a healthy environment. WHO needs US$ 14.1 billion for 2019– 2023 to deliver on the Triple Billion target, and drive impact in countries. This includes 2.5 billion for humanitarian and emergencies, 1.6 billion for polio eradication and 10.0 billion for the WHO base budget. Over the last decade WHO has seen a rise of earmarked voluntary contributions. Partners are requested to increase flexible sources available to WHO, including funding for strategic priorities and regional funding.
This article reviews trends and patterns of government spending in the East and Southern Africa region. It points out methodological challenges with interpreting data from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) and other sources. Government expenditure for health has increased for most countries, albeit at a slower rate than gross domestic product (GDP). In most countries there has been a prioritization away from health in government budgets, putting the onus on the private sector and external funders to fill the gap. Reliance on external funding is important in the region but argued to be inconsistent with countries’ stated ambitions of universal health coverage. A number of methodological challenges with estimating health expenditures are identified. Capturing health expenditures adequately across agencies and levels of decentralization can be challenging, and off-budget funds and arrears are evasive. Measurement error can be significant because actual expenditure information can be hard to come by and is often dated and unreliable. Furthermore, how external financing is captured will affect government health expenditure estimates. These factors have contributed to differences in expenditure estimates between WHO and country-specific public expenditure reviews and complicate interpretation. The article concludes that it is critical to strengthen national data capacity and international efforts to promote quality and consistency of data.
Results-based financing for health programmes are being piloted in many low- and middle-income countries. While the term results-based financing refers to demand- and supply-side incentives to increase output – that is, improved access to and quality of health care – this editorial focuses on the incentives that target service providers, also referred to as performance-based financing or pay-for-performance. A study in Zambia concluded that the pay-for-performance intervention was cost–effective. However, cost–effectiveness is not the most interesting point of this study, as four policy relevant lessons emerge. First, any output-based provider payment method requires some method of verification. In Zambia, setting up verification mechanisms required new investments, as before the pilot, providers were paid based on inputs. The estimates of the costs of the programme in Zambia, although annualized, are based on only 2.3 years of experience. Given that it is a new programme, one would expect that pay-for-performance verification costs would decline over time. Second, approaching pay-for-performance as an either-or choice of financing is no longer the only frame of reference. The substantive question is how to integrate elements of performance into the mixed provider payment system. Third, as described in the overall evaluation of the project, the direct disbursement of funds to facility bank accounts in the pay-for-performance group was a key ingredient for ensuring better service delivery. Fourth, facility financial autonomy supported by pay-for-performance was found to be key for ensuring progress towards strategic purchasing in Zambia. If balanced with clear accountability for both good results and the use of funds, it should be promoted. In shifting towards mixed provider payment methods with timely disbursement of funds and greater financial autonomy by front-line providers, the budgeting processes need to be considered. In countries such as Zambia, where budgets are mainly formulated, approved and executed based on detailed input lines, the authors argue that shifting to payments based on performance could be challenging.
Though condom use is now higher than ever before, key gaps remain in countries and in certain populations, where use has stagnated or even decreased. This survey comprised five standalone national cross-sectional surveys carried out in randomly selected geographical areas. Quantitative data were collected from adult men who purchased or obtained a condom in the three months preceding the surveys. A minimum of 1,200 participants was enrolled for each country, with quotas for urban and rural respondents; and brand types that a user most often used (i.e., free, socially marketed (SM), and commercial). The AIDSFree team identified important differences in each of the countries’ condom markets. The team noted many overarching themes: Supplies of free condoms appear to significantly exceed use of such condoms; SM brands should set prices based ability-to-pay trends in country, rather than on trends in costs or available subsidies; It is not just price—brand appeal and availability are important factors in men’s choice of condom brands; Low-priced commercial condom brands are emerging, at the same or lower price than SM brands. However, lower awareness and availability appear to limit their market share.; Introducing a single pack of condom brands does not appear to change the market structure significantly.
This paper focuses on elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS). Using study data and time motion studies, the authors constructed an Excel-based tool to estimate costs and the budget impact of aPS in selected facilities in Kisumu County. The authors report the annual total and unit costs of HTS, incremental total and unit costs for aPS, and the budget impact of scaling up aPS over a 5-year horizon. The average unit costs for HIV testing among HIV-infected index clients was US$ 25.36 per client and US$ 17.86 per client using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental costs for providing enhanced aPS in Kisumu County were US$ 1 092 161 and US$ 753 547 per year, using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental cost of scaling up aPS over a five period was 45% higher when using nurses compared to using CHWs. Over the five years, the upper-bound budget impact of nurse-model was US$ 1,8mn, 63% and 35% of which were accounted for by aPS costs and ART costs, respectively. The CHW model incurred an upper-bound incremental cost of US$ 1,3mn which was 71% lower than the nurse-based model. The budget impact was sensitive to the level of aPS coverage and ranged from US$ 28 547 for 30% coverage using CHWs in 2014 to US$ 1,3mn for 80% coverage using nurses in 2018. Scaling aPS using nurses has minimal budget impact but not cost-saving over a five-year period. Targeting aPS to newly-diagnosed index cases and task-shifting to community health workers is recommended by the authors.
Uganda has increased its allocation to the health sector from Ush1.8 trillion ( US $470.6 million) in the 2017/18 financial year to Ush2.3 trillion ($595.6 million), in what the author indicates that some see as an a response to a backlash in 2017 from external funders when the government reduced the nominal value of Ministry of Health’s funding by Ush6 billion ($1.5 million). Officials at the ministry note the increased allocation aims to support the country on a journey to universal health coverage and reduce dependence on external funding. In the 2018/19 financial year, Dr Sarah Byakika, the acting planning commissioner in the Ministry of Health, said the increased allocation will among other things target universal health coverage, recruit community health workers, cover recurrent expenditures at specific hospitals and for the national blood bank. Money is also being provided to avert the perennial strikes of interns and for the drafting of regulations for a new national health insurance law, with national health insurance seen as key for improved domestic financing.
Zimbabwe's Health Financing Policy and strategy launched in June 2018 was informed by WHO guidelines on health financing embedded in a health systems framework. The policy and strategy acknowledge that the way funds are raised and allocated and the way services are paid for influences how services are accessed by the population. It focuses on better use of available resources, and increased Government allocation to health leading to reduced direct out of pocket payments by households, which will in turn reduce financial barriers to access for the poor. It also brings in innovation in exploring more options to raise funding for health, and the creation of a pool of funds to ensure better management of health funds. Emphasis on achieving sustainable health financing is explicit in the Health Financing Strategy so that gains can be sustained. The financing seeks to ensure that the current National Health Strategy (2016-2020) is well financed and implemented to take steps towards financial risk protection and ultimately universal health coverage.
The Health Transition Fund (HTF) is a $435 million, five-year programme (2011-2015) that aimed to revitalize Zimbabwe’s health sector by improving the lives of children and women. It was funded by multiple external funders from the European Union, Canada, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom and SIDA Sweden, and managed by UNICEF in cooperation with the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health. It has four pillars: 1) Improvement of maternal, newborn and child health as well as nutrition, 2) Provision of essential medicines, vaccines and technologies, 3) Human resources including assistance with health worker management, training and retention, 4) Health policy, planning and finance. It aimed to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters and under-5 mortality by two thirds (as stated in the Millennium Development Goals) and eliminate user fees for children under the age of five and pregnant and lactating women by 2015. It sought to support the halving of the number of underweight children under five and combating, halting and reversing trends in HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. A steering committee, chaired by the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Health, oversees and directs the rollout of the fund and defines priority interventions within each of the four thematic areas, while funders provide support to monitoring, evaluation and technical expertise.