In recent years, governments of several low-income countries have taken decisive action by removing fully or partially user fees in the health sector. In this study, we review recent reforms in six sub-Saharan African countries: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal and Uganda. The review describes the processes and strategies through which user fee removal reforms have been implemented and tries to assess them by referring to a good practice hypotheses framework. The analysis shows that African leaders are willing to take strong action to remove financial barriers met by vulnerable groups, especially pregnant women and children. However, due to a lack of consultation and the often unexpected timing of the decision taken by the political authorities, there was insufficient preparation for user fee removal in several countries. This lack of preparation resulted in poor design of the reform and weaknesses in the processes of policy formulation and implementation. Our assessment is that there is now a window of opportunity in many African countries for policy action to address barriers to accessing health care. Mobilizing sufficient financial resources and obtaining long-term commitment are obviously crucial requirements, but design details, the formulation process and implementation plan also need careful thought. We contend that national policy-makers and international agencies could better collaborate in this respect.

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.

There is a large body of evidence that user fees in the health sector create exclusion. Health equity funds attempt to improve access to health care services for the poorest by paying the provider on their behalf. This paper reviews four hospital-based health equity funds in Cambodia and draws lessons for future operations. It investigates the practical questions of 'who should do what and how'. It presents, in a comparative framework, similarities and differences in objectives, the actors involved, design aspects and functional modalities between the health equity funds. The results of this review are presented along the lines of identification, hospitalization rates and relative costs. The four schemes had a positive impact on the volume of utilization of hospital services by the poorest patients. They now account for 7 to 52% of total hospital use. The utilization of hospitals by paying patients has remained constant in the same period. The comparative review shows that a range of operational arrangements may be adopted to achieve the health equity fund objectives. Our study identifies essential design aspects, and leaves different options open for others.