Efficiency gains is a potential strategy to expand Kenyas fiscal space for health. We explored health sector stakeholders understanding of efficiency and their perceptions of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems in Kenya. We collected data during a stakeholder engagement workshop. Workshop participants included health sector stakeholders from the national ministry of health and 10 (out 47) county health departments, and non-state actors in Kenya. We divided stakeholders into three groups and carried out facilitated group discussions followed by whole group feedback and discussion session. A total of 25 health sector stakeholders participated. We analysed data using a thematic approach. Health sector stakeholders indicated the need for the outputs and outcomes of a health system to be aligned to community health needs. They felt that both hardware aspects of the system (such as the financial resources, infrastructure, human resources for health) and software aspects of the system (such as health sector policies, public finance management systems, actor relationships) should be considered as inputs in the analysis of county health system efficiency. They also felt that while traditional indicators of health system performance such as intervention coverage or outcomes for infectious diseases, and reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health (RMNCH) are still relevant, emerging epidemiological trends characterized by an increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) should also be considered. The stakeholders identified public finance management, human resources for health, political interests, corruption, management capacity, and poor coordination as factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems. An in-depth examination of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems could illuminate potential policy levers for generating efficiency gains. Mixed methods approaches could facilitate the study of both hardware and software factors that are considered inputs, outputs or factors that influence health system efficiency.

Background Improving health system efficiency is a key strategy to increase health system performance and accelerate progress towards Universal Health Coverage. In 2013, Kenya transitioned into a devolved system of government granting county governments autonomy over budgets and priorities. We assessed the level and determinants of technical efficiency of the 47 county health systems in Kenya. Methods We carried out a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) using Simar and Wilson’s double bootstrap method using data from all the 47 counties in Kenya. In the first stage, we derived the bootstrapped DEA scores using an output orientation. We used three input variables (Public county health expenditure, Private county health expenditure, number of healthcare facilities), and one outcome variable (Disability Adjusted Life Years) using 2018 data. In the second stage, the bias corrected technical inefficiency scores were regressed against 14 exogenous factors using a bootstrapped truncated regression. Results The mean bias-corrected technical efficiency score of the 47 counties was 69.72% (95% CI 66.41–73.01%), indicating that on average, county health systems could increase their outputs by 30.28% at the same level of inputs. County technical efficiency scores ranged from 42.69% (95% CI 38.11–45.26%) to 91.99% (95% CI 83.78–98.95%). Higher HIV prevalence was associated with greater technical inefficiency of county health systems, while higher population density, county absorption of development budgets, and quality of care provided by healthcare facilities were associated with lower county health system inefficiency. Conclusions The findings from this analysis highlight the need for county health departments to consider ways to improve the efficiency of county health systems. Approaches could include prioritizing resources to interventions that will reduce high chronic disease burden, filling structural quality gaps, implementing interventions to improve process quality, identifying the challenges to absorption rates and reforming public finance management systems to enhance their efficiency.

Background Efficiency refers the use of resources in ways that optimise desired outcomes. Health system efficiency is a priority concern for policy makers globally as countries aim to achieve universal health coverage, and face the additional challenge of an aging population. Efficiency analysis in the health sector has typically focused on the efficiency of healthcare facilities (hospitals, primary healthcare facilities), with few studies focusing on system level (national or sub-national) efficiency. We carried out a thematic review of literature that assessed the efficiency of health systems at the national and sub-national level. Methods We conducted a systematic search of PubMed and Google scholar between 2000 and 2021 and a manual search of relevant papers selected from their reference lists. A total of 131 papers were included. We analysed and synthesised evidence from the selected papers using a thematic approach (selecting, sorting, coding and charting collected data according to identified key issues and themes). Findings There were more publications from high-and upper middle-income countries (53%) than from low-income and lower middle-income countries. There were also more publications focusing on national level (60%) compared to sub-national health systems' efficiency. Only 6% of studies used either qualitative methods or mixed methods while 94% used quantitative approaches. Data envelopment analysis, a non-parametric method, was the most common methodological approach used, followed by stochastic frontier analysis, a parametric method. A range of regression methods were used to identify the determinants of health system efficiency. While studies used a range of inputs, these generally considered the building blocks of health systems, health risk factors, and social determinants of health. Outputs used in efficiency analysis could be classified as either intermediate health service outputs (e.g., number of health facility visits), single health outcomes (e.g., infant mortality rate) or composite indices of either intermediate outputs of health outcomes (e.g., Health Adjusted Life Expectancy). Factors that were found to affect health system efficiency include demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population, macro-economic characteristics of the national and sub-national regions, population health and wellbeing, the governance and political characteristics of these regions, and health system characteristics. Conclusion This review highlights the limited evidence on health system efficiency, especially in low-and middle-income countries. It also reveals the dearth of efficiency studies that use mixed methods approaches by incorporating qualitative inquiry. The review offers insights on the drivers of the efficiency of national and sub-national health systems, and highlights potential targets for reforms to improve health system efficiency.

Efficiency gains is a potential strategy to expand Kenya’s fiscal space for health. We explored health sector stakeholders’ understanding of efficiency and their perceptions of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems in Kenya. We conducted a qualitative cross-sectional study and collected data using three focus group discussions during a stakeholder engagement workshop. Workshop participants included health sector stakeholders from the national ministry of health and 10 (out 47) county health departments, and non-state actors in Kenya. A total of 25 health sector stakeholders participated. We analysed data using a thematic approach. Health sector stakeholders indicated the need for the outputs and outcomes of a health system to be aligned to community health needs. They felt that both hardware aspects of the system (such as the financial resources, infrastructure, human resources for health) and software aspects of the system (such as health sector policies, public finance management systems, actor relationships) should be considered as inputs in the analysis of county health system efficiency. They also felt that while traditional indicators of health system performance such as intervention coverage or outcomes for infectious diseases, and reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health are still relevant, emerging epidemiological trends such as an increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases should also be considered. The stakeholders identified public finance management, human resources for health, political interests, corruption, management capacity, and poor coordination as factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems. An in-depth examination of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems could illuminate potential policy levers for generating efficiency gains. Mixed methods approaches could facilitate the study of both hardware and software factors that are considered inputs, outputs or factors that influence health system efficiency. County health system efficiency in Kenya could be enhanced by improving the timeliness of financial flows to counties and health facilities, giving health facilities financial autonomy, improving the number, skill mix, and motivation of healthcare staff, managing political interests, enhancing anticorruption strategies, strengthening management capacity and coordination in the health sector.

IntroductionPublic Finance Management (PFM) processes guide the translation of government resources to services and determine health system efficiency. PFM processes are implemented within the budget cycle which entails the formulation, execution, and evaluation of government budgets. We examined how the budget formulation structure and processes influence health system efficiency at the county level in Kenya.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods case study using counties classified as relatively efficient (n=2) and relatively inefficient (n=2) as our cases. We collected qualitative data through document reviews, and in-depth interviews (n=70). We collected quantitative data from secondary sources, including budgets and budget reports. We analyzed qualitative data using the thematic approach and carried out descriptive analyses on quantitative data.ResultsBudget ceilings were historically allocated, insufficient, late, or not availed at all. This led to development of budgets that were unresponsive to health system needs. Counties developed both programme-based and line budgets with line budgets as the functional budgets. Line budgets limited accountability and flexibility to reallocate resources. County health funds were fragmented resulting in duplications and wastage. Limited stakeholder participation compromised priority setting and social accountability. Priority setting that was not evidence-informed limited efficiency. Finally, budget changes at the budget approval process compromised alignment of plans to budgets.ConclusionThis study has highlighted six aspects of the budget formulation process in Kenyan counties that ought to be strengthened to enhance health system efficiency: budget ceilings, budget structure, participatory budget formulation, pooling of health funds, priority setting processes and the budget approval process.HighlightsLate and Insufficient budget ceilings lead to development of poorly formulated budgetsPoorly developed and unused programme-based budgets limit health system performanceFragmented health system funding results in duplication and wastageLimited stakeholder involvement compromised priority setting and accountability