No abstract

This article presents the findings of a theory-based evaluation of the Sierra Leone Free Health Care Initiative (FHCI), using mixed methods. Analytical approaches included time-series analysis of national survey data to examine mortality and morbidity trends, as well as modelling of impact using the Lives Saved Tool and expenditure trend analysis. We find that the FHCI responded to a clear need in Sierra Leone, was well designed to bring about needed changes in the health system to deliver services to the target beneficiaries, and did indeed bring funds and momentum to produce important systemic reforms. However, its ambition was also a risk, and weaknesses in implementation have been evident in a number of core areas, such as drugs supply. We conclude that the FHCI was one important factor contributing to improvements in coverage and equity of coverage of essential services for mothers and children. Modelled cost-effectiveness is high-in the region of US$ 420 to US$ 444 per life year saved. The findings suggest that even-or perhaps especially-in a weak health system, a reform-like fee removal, if tackled in a systematic way, can bring about important health system gains that benefit vulnerable groups in particular.

Removing user fees could improve service coverage and access, in particular among the poorest socio-economic groups, but quick action without prior preparation could lead to unintended effects, including quality deterioration and excessive demands on health workers. This paper illustrates the process needed to make a realistic forecast of the possible resource implications of a well-implemented user fee removal programme and proposes six steps for a successful policy change: (1) analysis of a country's initial position (including user fee level, effectiveness of exemption systems and impact of fee revenues at facility level); (2) estimation of the impact of user fee removal on service utilization; (3) estimation of the additional requirements for human resources, drugs and other inputs, and corresponding financial requirements; (4) mobilization of additional resources (both domestic and external) and development of locally-tailored strategies to compensate for the revenue gap and costs associated with increased utilization; (5) building political commitment for the policy reform; (6) communicating the policy change to all stakeholders. The authors conclude that countries that intend to remove user fees can maximize benefits and avoid potential pitfalls through the utilization of the approach and tools described.

BackgroundAll health systems struggle to meet health needs within constrained resources. This is especially true for low-income countries. It is critical that they can learn from wider contexts in order to improve their performance. This article examines policy transfer and evidence use linked to it in low- and middle-income settings. The objective was to inform international investments in improved learning across health systems.MethodsThe article uses a comparative case study design, drawing on case studies conducted in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Nepal, Rwanda and Solomon Islands. One or two recent health system reforms were selected in each case and 148 key informants were interviewed in total, using a semi-structured tool focused on different stages of the policy cycle. Interviewees were selected for their engagement in the policy process and represented political, technical, development partner, non-governmental, academic and civil society constituencies. Data analysis used a framework approach, allowing for new themes to be developed inductively, focusing initially on each case and then on patterns across cases.ResultsThe selected policies demonstrated a range of influences of externally imposed, co-produced and home-grown solutions on the development of initial policy ideas. Eventual uptake of policy was strongly driven in most settings by local political economic considerations. Policy development post-adoption demonstrated some strong internal review, monitoring and sharing processes but there is a more contested view of the role of evaluation. In many cases, learning was facilitated by direct personal relationships with local development partner staff. While barriers and facilitators to evidence use included supply and demand factors, the most influential facilitators were incentives and capacity to use evidence.ConclusionsThese findings emphasise the agency of local actors and the importance of developing national and sub-national institutions for gathering, filtering and sharing evidence. Developing demand for and capacity to use evidence appears more important than augmenting supply of evidence, although specific gaps in supply were identified. The findings also highlight the importance of the local political economy in setting parameters within which evidence is considered and the need for a conceptual framework for health system learning.