Structural aspects of quality such as equipment and infrastructure were the most frequently measured, with some measurement of processes of clinical care. Further examination is warranted to assess whether variations in how quality of care is incorporated into performance-based financing programs lead to differential effects.

This paper seeks to systematically describe the length and content of quality checklists used in performance-based financing programmes, their similarities and differences, and how checklists have evolved over time. We compiled a list of supply-side, health facility-based performance-based financing (PBF) programmes in low- and lower middle-income countries based on a document review. We then solicited PBF manuals and quality checklists from implementers and donors of these PBF mechanisms. We entered each indicator from each quality checklist into a database verbatim in English, and translated into English from French where appropriate, and categorized each indicator according to the Donabedian framework and an author-derived categorization. We extracted 8,490 quality indicators from 68 quality checklists across 32 PBF implementations in 28 countries. On average, checklists contained 125 indicators; within the same program, checklists tend to grow as they are updated. Using the Donabedian framework, 80% of indicators were structure-type, 19% process-type, and less than 1% outcome-type. The author-derived categorization showed that 57% of indicators relate to availability of resources, 24% to managing the facility and 17% assess knowledge and effort. There is a high degree of similarity in a narrow set of indicators used in checklists for common service types such as maternal, neonatal and child health. We conclude that performance-based financing offers an appealing approach to targeting specific quality shortfalls and advancing toward the Sustainable Development Goals of high quality coverage. Currently most indicators focus on structural issues and resource availability. There is scope to rationalize and evolve the quality checklists of these programs to help achieve national and global goals to improve quality of care.

Despite the increasing popularity of Results Based Financing, there is little evidence or documentation of different verification strategies and how strategies relate to the verification results. Documentation of implementation processes including those pertaining to verification of outputs/results is lacking in World Bank-financed RBF projects in the health sector. The overall objective of this cross-case analysis is to expand knowledge about verification processes and practices to address the design and implementation needs of RBF projects. This study adds to available knowledge by comparing the characteristics of verification strategies as well as available data on costs (using level of effort as a proxy), savings, and verification results to date in six countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Burundi, Panama, Rwanda, and the UK. These case studies were purposively selected to explore a number of factors, including: how a variety of results are verified; how the verification strategy is being implemented at different levels in the health system; and the implications of having different types of actors (that is, third-party versus internal verifiers) involved in the verification process. In this cross-case analysis, the discussion of similarities and differences in verification methods across the six cases as well as the analysis of findings is guided by a conceptual framework developed for this study. This study presents seventeen key findings, and nine recommendations.

BackgroundPerformance-based financing (PBF) both measures and determines payments based on the quality of care delivered and is emerging as a potential tool to improve quality.MethodsComparative case study methodology was used to analyze common challenges and lessons learned in quality of care across seven PBF programs (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia). The eight case studies, across seven PBF programs, compared were commissioned by the USAID-funded Translating Research into Action (TRAction) project (n = 4), USAID’s Health Finance and Government project (n = 3), and from the Global Delivery Initiative (n = 1).ResultsThe programs show similar design features to assess quality, but significant heterogeneity in their application. The seven programs included 18 unique quality checklists, containing over 1400 quality of care indicators, with an average per checklist of 116 indicators (ranging from 26-228). The quality checklists share a focus on structural components of quality (representing 80% of indicators on average, ranging from 38%-91%). Process indicators constituted an average of 20% across all checklists (ranging from 8.4% to 61.5%), with the majority measuring the correct application of care protocols for MCH services including child immunization. The sample included only one example of an outcome indicator from Kyrgyzstan. Performance data demonstrated a modest upward improvement over time in checklist scores across schemes, however, achievements plateaued at 60%-70%, with small or rural clinics reporting difficulty achieving payment thresholds due to limited resources and poor infrastructure. Payment allocations (distribution) and thresholds (for payments), data transparency, and approaches to measuring (verification) of quality differ across schemes.ConclusionsSimilarities exist in the processes that govern the design of PBF mechanisms, yet substantial heterogeneity in the experiences of implementing quality of care components in PBF programs are evident. This comparison suggests tailoring further the quality component of PBF programs to local and country contexts, and a need to better understand how quality is measured in practice. The growing operational experiences with PBF programs in different settings offer opportunities to learn from best practices, improve ongoing and future programs, and inform research to alleviate current challenges.