Based on a household survey conducted in Tbilisi, Georgia, in 2000, this paper examines current patterns of health care-seeking behaviour and the extent of out-of-pocket payments. Results show that health care services are a financial burden and that private (out-of-pocket) payment creates financial barriers to accessing health services. Members of the poorest households are less likely to seek care than people from more affluent households, and devote a higher share of household monthly expenditure to health care. Households have adopted various strategies to overcome these financial barriers, but the strategies are likely to contribute to both declining economic status and worsening health outcomes. The paper provides an evidence base to help direct future policy reform in Georgia. Government needs to: (1) prioritize public financing of services for the poor, in particular through amending the Basic Benefit Package so that it better reflects the needs of the poor; (2) promote the quality and utilization of primary care services; (3) address the issue of rational drug use; and (4) consider mobilizing out-of-pocket payments on a pre-paid basis through formal or community-based risk pooling schemes.

BackgroundMore than 72% of health expenditure in India is financed by individual households at the time of illness through out-of-pocket payments. This is a highly regressive way of financing health care and sometimes leads to impoverishment. Health insurance is recommended as a measure to protect households from such catastrophic health expenditure (CHE). We studied two Indian community health insurance (CHI) schemes, ACCORD and SEWA, to determine whether insured households are protected from CHE.MethodsACCORD provides health insurance cover for the indigenous population, living in Gudalur, Tamil Nadu. SEWA provides insurance cover for self employed women in the state of Gujarat. Both cover hospitalisation expenses, but only upto a maximum limit of US$23 and US$45, respectively.We reviewed the insurance claims registers in both schemes and identified patients who were hospitalised during the period 01/04/2003 to 31/03/2004. Details of their diagnoses, places and costs of treatment and self-reported annual incomes were obtained. There is no single definition of CHE and none of these have been validated. For this research, we used the following definition; "annual hospital expenditure greater than 10% of annual income," to identify those who experienced CHE.ResultsThere were a total of 683 and 3152 hospital admissions at ACCORD and SEWA, respectively. In the absence of the CHI scheme, all of the patients at ACCORD and SEWA would have had to pay OOP for their hospitalisation. With the CHI scheme, 67% and 34% of patients did not have to make any out-of-pocket (OOP) payment for their hospital expenses at ACCORD and SEWA, respectively. Both CHI schemes halved the number of households that would have experienced CHE by covering hospital costs. However, despite this, 4% and 23% of households with admissions still experienced CHE at ACCORD and SEWA, respectively. This was related to the following conditions: low annual income, benefit packages with low maximum limits, exclusion of some conditions from the benefit package, and use of the private sector for admissions.ConclusionCHI appears to be effective at halving the incidence of CHE among hospitalised patients. This protection could be further enhanced by improving the design of the CHI schemes, especially by increasing the upper limits of benefit packages, minimising exclusions and controlling costs.

In 2004, the ministerial summit in Mexico drew attention to the historic neglect of health policy and systems research (HPSR) and called for increased funding, investment in national institutional capacity for HPSR, and resources for selected priority research topics. On the basis of meeting discussions, published reports, and available data from research funders and organisations in low-income and middle-income countries, we discuss how HPSR has evolved since the summit in Mexico. Funding for HPSR, particularly in low-income countries, is mainly supported by international and bilateral organisations. Increased interest in health systems has translated into increased support for HPSR. However, small grants and lack of coordination between funders inhibit capacity development, and substantial gaps remain between institutional capacities of high-income and low-income countries. Lack of national capacity is judged to be the key constraint to the development of HPSR. Recommendations from the summit in Mexico remain pertinent, and momentum towards their achievement must be accelerated through the ministerial forum in Mali and beyond.

No abstract

Addressing diseases of a high burden with the most cost-effective interventions could do much to reduce disease in the population. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of 40 health interventions in Guinea, a low-income country in sub-Saharan Africa, using local data. Interventions were selected from treatment protocols at health centres, first referral hospitals and national programmes in Guinea, based upon consultation with health care providers and government plans. For each intervention, we calculated the costs (comprising labour, drugs, supplies, equipment, and overhead) in relation to years of life saved, discounted at 3%. The results show that the per capita costs and effectiveness of any intervention vary considerably. Average costs show no clear pattern by level of care, but effectiveness is generally highest for curative hospital interventions. Several interventions have a cost-effectiveness of US$100 per year of life saved (LYS) or less, and address more than 5% of total years of life lost. These include health centre interventions such as: treatment of childhood pneumonia ($3/LYS); rehydration therapy for diarrhoea ($7/LYS); integrated management of childhood pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea ($8/LYS); short-course treatment of tuberculosis ($12/LYS); treatment of childhood malaria ($13/LYS), and childhood vaccination ($25/LYS). Outreach programmes for impregnated bed nets against malaria cost $43/LYS. Maternal and perinatal diseases, have slightly less cost-effective interventions: integrated family planning, prenatal and delivery care at health centres ($109/LYS) or outreach programmes to provide prenatal and delivery care ($283/LYS). A minimum package of health services would cost approximately $13 per capita, and would address a large proportion (69%) of major causes of premature mortality. This minimum package would cost about three times the current public spending on health, suggesting that health spending needs to rise to achieve good health outcomes.

We analyzed the technical basis for a major global program to reduce disease among the poor. Effective interventions exist against the few diseases which most account for excess mortality among the poor. Achieving high coverage of effective interventions requires a well-functioning health system, as well as overcoming a set of financial and nonfinancial constraints. The annual incremental cost would be between $40 billion and $52 billion by 2015 in 83 low-income and sub-Saharan African countries. Such a program is feasible and would avoid millions of child, maternal, and adult deaths annually in poor countries.

ObjectivesTo identify priority policy issues in access to medicines (ATM) relevant for low- and middle-income countries, to identify research questions that would help address these policy issues, and to prioritize these research questions in a health policy and systems research (HPSR) agenda.MethodsThe study involved i) country- and regional-level priority-setting exercises performed in 17 countries across five regions, with a desk review of relevant grey and published literature combined with mapping and interviews of national and regional stakeholders; ii) interviews with global-level stakeholders; iii) a scoping of published literature; and iv) a consensus building exercise with global stakeholders which resulted in the formulation and ranking of HPSR questions in the field of ATM.ResultsA list of 18 priority policy issues was established following analysis of country-, regional-, and global-level exercises. Eighteen research questions were formulated during the global stakeholders’ meeting and ranked according to four ranking criteria (innovation, impact on health and health systems, equity, and lack of research). The top three research questions were: i) In risk protection schemes, which innovations and policies improve equitable access to and appropriate use of medicines, sustainability of the insurance system, and financial impact on the insured? ii) How can stakeholders use the information available in the system, e.g., price, availability, quality, utilization, registration, procurement, in a transparent way towards improving access and use of medicines? and iii) How do policies and other interventions into private markets, such as information, subsidies, price controls, donation, regulatory mechanisms, promotion practices, etc., impact on access to and appropriate use of medicines?ConclusionsOur HPSR agenda adopts a health systems perspective and will guide relevant, innovative research, likely to bear an impact on health, health systems and equity.

No abstract