What do consumers pay for pharmaceuticals in a transition economy, and who is hit hardest? Kazakhstan is in the midst of emerging from a Soviet Union state to a market economy. It has seen a significant dip in Gross Domestic Product and available revenues for health as a result. New sources of revenues, such as out-of-pocket payments, both formal and informal, have become widespread. In this paper we use the results of a 1996 Living Standards survey jointly sponsored by the World Bank and the Kazakhstan Government to examine patterns of prescribed pharmaceutical spending. We use a two-part regression model that is utilized to adjust for the skewness of non-spenders and heavy utilizers. Results suggest that upper-income groups spend more in absolute terms, but low-income groups pay a higher share of their income for pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical expenditure is positively related to poor health status, chronic illness and rural area residence. Our estimates suggest that on average people in rural areas spend 16% more than people in urban areas. The analysis shows that certain types of illnesses impose significant out-of-pocket burden for consumers - gynaecologic as well as intestinal and cardiac. The findings can be used for developing and designing a new 10-year World Bank-financed programme for restructuring the health sector. They also suggest the need for prioritizing rural care, as well as covering pharmaceuticals for specific types of care interventions and certain demographic groups.
A comparison of two assessment methods, consensus among experts and research synthesis of the scientific literature, was performed using a surgical procedure, carotid endarterectomy (CE), as an example. These two methods have been widely advocated as being scientifically valid. While the comparison revealed a number of areas of general agreement, important differences between the two methods emerged. For example, 30-day mortality for asymptomatic patients was considered an effective outcome (ranked first) by the synthesis, but only "equivocal" (ranked third) of six major indicators reported by the consensus method. The synthesis results are also consistent with other literature reviews as well as with recent large-scale randomized trial results. A number of factors that could account for differences between the two methods were examined. Overall, use of consensus panels may be appropriate early in the development of an intervention where the evidence is sparse, while quantitative research synthesis is preferable when a number of high-quality studies have been performed.
Strategic purchasing of health services involves a continuous search for the best ways to maximize health system performance by deciding which interventions should be purchased, from whom they should be purchased, and how to pay for them. In such an arrangement, the passive cashier is replaced by an intelligent purchaser that can focus scarce resources on existing and emerging priorities rather than continuing entrenched historical spending patterns. Having experimented with different ways of paying providers of health care services, countries increasingly want to know not only what to do when paying providers, but also how to do it, particularly how to design, manage, and implement the transition from current to reformed systems, and this how-to manual addresses this need. The book has chapters on three of the most effective provider payment systems: primary care per capita (capitation) payment, case-based hospital payment, and hospital global budgets. It also includes a primer on a second policy lever used by purchasers, namely, contracting. This primer can be especially useful with one provider payment method: hospital global budgets. The volume's final chapter provides an outline for designing, launching, and running a health management information system, as well as the necessary infrastructure for strategic purchasing.
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.