This paper questions the view that performance-based financing (PBF) in the health sector is an effective, efficient and equitable approach to improving the performance of health systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). PBF was conceived as an open approach adapted to specific country needs, having the potential to foster system-wide reforms. However, as with many strategies and tools, there is a gap between what was planned and what is actually implemented. This paper argues that PBF as it is currently implemented in many contexts does not satisfy the promises. First, since the start of PBF implementation in LMICs, concerns have been raised on the basis of empirical evidence from different settings and disciplines that indicated the risks, cost and perverse effects. However, PBF implementation was rushed despite insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. Second, there is a lack of domestic ownership of PBF. Considering the amounts of time and money it now absorbs, and the lack of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency, PBF can be characterised as a donor fad. Third, by presenting itself as a comprehensive approach that makes it possible to address all aspects of the health system in any context, PBF monopolises attention and focuses policy dialogue on the short-term results of PBF programmes while diverting attention and resources from broader processes of change and necessary reforms. Too little care is given to system-wide and long-term effects, so that PBF can actually damage health services and systems. This paper ends by proposing entry points for alternative approaches.

BackgroundResults-based financing (RBF) is emerging as a new alternative to finance health systems in many African countries. In Mali, a pilot project was conducted to improve demand and supply of health services through financing performance in targeted services. No study has explored the sustainability process of such a project in Africa. This study’s objectives were to understand the project’s sustainability process and to assess its level of sustainability.MethodsSustainability was examined through its different determinants, phases, levels and contexts. These were explored using qualitative interviews to discern, via critical events, stakeholders’ ideas regarding the project’s sustainability. Data collection sites were chosen with the participation of different stakeholders, based on a variety of criteria (rural/urban settings, level of participation, RBF participants still present, etc.). Forty-nine stakeholders were then interviewed in six community health centres and two referral health centres (from 11/12/15 to 08/03/16), including health practitioners, administrators, and those involved in implementing and conceptualizing the program (government and NGOs). A theme analysis was done with the software © QDA Miner according to the study’s conceptual framework.ResultsThe results of this project show a weak level of sustainability due to many factors. While some gains could be sustained (ex.: investments in long-term resources, high compatibility of values and codes, adapted design to the implementations contexts, etc.) other intended benefits could not (ex.: end of investments, lack of shared cultural artefacts around RBF, loss of different tasks and procedures, need of more ownership of the project by the local stakeholders). A lack of sustainability planning was observed, and few critical events were associated to phases of sustainability.ConclusionsWhile this RBF project aimed at increasing health agents’ motivation through different mechanisms (supervision, investments, incentives, etc.), these results raise questions on what types of motivation could be more stable and what could be the place of local stakeholders in the project; all this with the aim of more sustained and efficient results.

No abstract

Background All prevention efforts currently being implemented for COVID-19 are aimed at reducing the burden on strained health systems and human resources. There has been little research conducted to understand how SARS-CoV-2 has affected health care systems and professionals in terms of their work. Finding effective ways to share the knowledge and insight between countries, including lessons learned, is paramount to the international containment and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this project is to compare the pandemic response to COVID-19 in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, and Mali. This comparison will be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the response, including challenges for health professionals and health systems. Methods We will use a multiple case study approach with multiple levels of nested analysis. We have chosen these countries as they represent different continents and different stages of the pandemic. We will focus on several major hospitals and two public health interventions (contact tracing and testing). It will employ a multidisciplinary research approach that will use qualitative data through observations, document analysis, and interviews, as well as quantitative data based on disease surveillance data and other publicly available data. Given that the methodological approaches of the project will be largely qualitative, the ethical risks are minimal. For the quantitative component, the data being used will be made publicly available. Discussion We will deliver lessons learned based on a rigorous process and on strong evidence to enable operational-level insight for national and international stakeholders.

In Mali, where rates of attendance at healthcare facilities remain far below what is needed, three user fee exemption policies were instituted to promote access to care. These related to HIV/AIDS treatment, as of 2004, caesarean sections, since 2005, and treatment of malaria in children under five and pregnant women, since 2007. Our qualitative study compared these three policies, looking at their implementation provisions, functioning and outcomes. In each healthcare facility, we analysed documentation and carried out three months of on-site observations. We also conducted a total of 254 formal and informal interviews with health personnel and patients.While these exemptions substantially improved users' access to care, their implementation revealed deep dysfunctions in the health system that undermined them all, regardless of the policy studied. These policies provoked resistance among health professionals that manifested in their practices and revealed, in particular, the profit-generation logic within which they operate today. These dysfunctions reflect the State's incapacity to exercise its regulatory role and to establish policies that are aligned with the way the health system really works.