In Ghana, Tanzania and South Africa, health care financing is progressive overall. However, out-of-pocket payments and health insurance for the informal sector are regressive. The distribution of health care benefits is generally pro-rich. This paper explores the factors influencing these distributions in the three countries. Qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with insurance scheme members, the uninsured, health care providers and managers. Household surveys were also conducted in all countries. Flat-rate contributions contributed to the regressivity of informal sector voluntary schemes, either by design (in Tanzania) or due to difficulties in identifying household income levels (in Ghana). In all three countries, the regressivity of out-of-pocket payments is due to the incomplete enforcement of exemption and waiver policies, partial or no insurance cover among poorer segments of the population and limited understanding of entitlements among these groups. Generally, the pro-rich distribution of benefits is due to limited access to higher level facilities among poor and rural populations, who rely on public primary care facilities and private pharmacies. Barriers to accessing health care include medical and transport costs, exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive insurance coverage among poorer groups. Service availability problems, including frequent drug stock-outs, limited or no diagnostic equipment, unpredictable opening hours and insufficient skilled staff also limit service access. Poor staff attitudes and lack of confidence in the skills of health workers were found to be important barriers to access. Financing reforms should therefore not only consider how to generate funds for health care, but also explicitly address the full range of affordability, availability and acceptability barriers to access in order to achieve equitable financing and benefit incidence patterns.
BackgroundIn many developing countries, initiatives are underway to strengthen voluntary community based health insurance as a means of expanding access to affordable care among the informal sector. However, increasing coverage with voluntary health insurance in low income settings can prove challenging. There are limited studies on determinants of enrolling in these schemes using mixed methods. This study aims to shed light on the characteristics of those joining a community health fund, a type of community based health insurance, in Tanzania and the reasons for their membership and subsequent drop out using mixed methods.MethodsA cross sectional survey of households in four rural districts was conducted in 2008, covering a total of 1,225 (524 members of CHF and 701 non-insured) households and 7,959 individuals. In addition, 12 focus group discussions were carried out with CHF members, non-scheme members and members of health facility governing committees in two rural districts. Logistic regression was used to assess the determinants of CHF membership while thematic analysis was done to analyse qualitative data.ResultsThe quantitative analysis revealed that the three middle income quintiles were more likely to enrol in the CHF than the poorest and the richest. CHF member households were more likely to be large, and headed by a male than uninsured households from the same areas. The qualitative data supported the finding that the poor rather than the poorest were more likely to join as were large families and of greater risk of illness, with disabilities or persons with chronic diseases. Households with elderly members or children under-five years were also more likely to enrol. Poor understanding of risk pooling deterred people from joining the scheme and was the main reason for not renewing membership. On the supply side, poor quality of public care services, the limited benefit package and a lack of provider choice were the main factors for low enrolment.ConclusionsDeterminants of CHF membership are diverse and improving the quality of health services and expanding the benefit package should be prioritised to expand voluntary health insurance coverage.
Stakeholder analysis is widely recommended as a tool for gathering insights on policy actor interests in, positions on, and power to influence, health policy issues. Such information is recognized to be critical in developing viable health policy proposals, and is particularly important for new health care financing proposals that aim to secure universal coverage (UC). However, there remain surprisingly few published accounts of the use of stakeholder analysis in health policy development generally, and health financing specifically, and even fewer that draw lessons from experience about how to do and how to use such analysis. This paper, therefore, aims to support those developing or researching UC reforms to think both about how to conduct stakeholder analysis, and how to use it to support evidence-informed pro-poor health policy development. It presents practical lessons and ideas drawn from experience of doing stakeholder analysis around UC reforms in South Africa and Tanzania, combined with insights from other relevant material. The paper has two parts. The first presents lessons of experience for conducting a stakeholder analysis, and the second, ideas about how to use the analysis to support policy design and the development of actor and broader political management strategies. Comparison of experience across South Africa and Tanzania shows that there are some commonalities concerning which stakeholders have general interests in UC reform. However, differences in context and in reform proposals generate differences in the particular interests of stakeholders and their likely positioning on reform proposals, as well as in their relative balance of power. It is, therefore, difficult to draw cross-national policy comparisons around these specific issues. Nonetheless, the paper shows that cross-national policy learning is possible around the approach to analysis, the factors influencing judgements and the implications for, and possible approaches to, management of policy processes. Such learning does not entail generalization about which UC reform package offers most gain in any setting, but rather about how to manage the reform process within a particular context.
BackgroundThe National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), a compulsory formal sector scheme took over the management of the Community Health Fund (CHF), a voluntary informal sector scheme, in 2009. This study assesses the origins of the reform, its effect on management and reporting structures, financial flow adequacy, reform communication and acceptability to key stakeholders, and initial progress towards universal coverage.MethodsThe study relied on national data sources and an in-depth collective case study of a rural and an urban district to assess awareness and acceptability of the reform, and fund availability and use relative to need in a sample of facilities.ResultsThe reform was driven by a national desire to expand coverage and increase access to services. Despite initial delays, the CHF has been embedded within the NHIF organisational structure, bringing more intensive and qualified supervision closer to the district. National CHF membership has more than doubled. However, awareness of the reform was limited below the district level due to the reform’s top-down nature. The reform was generally acceptable to key stakeholders, who expected that benefits between schemes would be harmonised.The reform was unable to institute changes to the CHF design or district management structures because it has so far been unable to change CHF legislation which also limits facility capacity to use CHF revenue. Further, revenue generated is currently insufficient to offset treatment and administration costs, and the reform did not improve the revenue to cost ratio. Administrative costs are also likely to have increased as a result of the reform.ConclusionInformal sector schemes can benefit from merger with formal sector schemes through improved data systems, supervision, and management support. However, effects will be maximised if legal frameworks can be harmonised early on and a reduction in administrative costs is not guaranteed.
Health worker training is a key component of the integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI). However, training coverage remains low in many countries. We conducted in-depth case studies in two East African countries to examine the factors underlying low training coverage 10 years after IMCI had been adopted as policy. A document review and in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at facility, district, regional/provincial and national levels in two districts in Kenya (Homa Bay and Malindi) and Tanzania (Bunda and Tarime) were carried out in 2007–08.Bunda and Malindi achieved higher levels of training coverage (44% and 25%) compared with Tarime and Homa Bay (5% and 13%). Key factors allowing the first two districts to perform better were: strong district leadership and personal commitment to IMCI, which facilitated access to external funding and encouraged local-level policy adaptation; sensitization and training of district health managers; and lower staff turnover. However, IMCI training coverage remained well below target levels across all sites. The main barrier to expanding coverage was the cost of training due to its duration, the number of facilitators and its residential nature. Mechanisms for financing IMCI also restricted district capacity to raise funds. In Tanzania, districts could not spend more than 10% of their budgets on training. In Kenya, limited financial decentralization meant that district managers had to rely on donors for financial support. Critically, the low priority given to IMCI at national and international levels also limited the expansion of training. Levels of domestic and donor support for IMCI have diminished over time in favour of vertical programmes, partly due to the difficulty in monitoring and measuring the impact of an integrated intervention like IMCI.Alternative, lower cost methods of IMCI training need to be promoted, and greater advocacy for IMCI is needed both nationally and internationally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.