Although prepayment schemes are being hailed internationally as part of a solution to health care financing problems in low-income countries, literature has raised problems with such schemes. This paper reports the findings of a study that examined the factors influencing low enrollment in Tanzania's health prepayment schemes (Community Health Fund). The paper argues that district managers had a direct influence over the factors explaining low enrollment and identified in other studies (inability to pay membership contributions, low quality of care, lack of trust in scheme managers and failure to see the rationale to insure). District managers' actions appeared, in turn, to be at least partly a response to the manner of this policy's implementation. In order better to achieve the objectives of prepayment schemes, it is important to focus attention on policy implementers, who are capable of re-shaping policy during its implementation, with consequences for policy outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service management processes and outcomes. As a result, the ability to draw scientifically sound lessons for the application of the framework to services and interventions is limited. This paper evaluates the experiences of implementing the A4R approach in Mbarali District, Tanzania, in order to find out how the innovation was shaped, enabled, and constrained by the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.MethodsThis study draws on the principles of realist evaluation -- a largely qualitative approach, chiefly concerned with testing and refining programme theories by exploring the complex interactions of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual interviews, non-participant observation, and document reviews. A thematic framework approach was adopted for the data analysis.ResultsThe study found that while the A4R approach to priority setting was helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and fairness, the efforts at integrating it into the current district health system were challenging. Participatory structures under the decentralisation framework, central government's call for partnership in district-level planning and priority setting, perceived needs of stakeholders, as well as active engagement between researchers and decision makers all facilitated the adoption and implementation of the innovation. In contrast, however, limited local autonomy, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and limited local resources were the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation.ConclusionThis study documents an important first step in the effort to introduce the ethical framework A4R into district planning processes. This study supports the idea that a greater involvement and accountability among local actors through the A4R process may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. Support from researchers in providing a broader and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and the socio-cultural context, could lead to better prediction of the effects of the innovation and pinpoint stakeholders' concerns, thereby illuminating areas that require special attention to promote sustainability.

Stakeholder analysis is widely recommended as a tool for gathering insights on policy actor interests in, positions on, and power to influence, health policy issues. Such information is recognized to be critical in developing viable health policy proposals, and is particularly important for new health care financing proposals that aim to secure universal coverage (UC). However, there remain surprisingly few published accounts of the use of stakeholder analysis in health policy development generally, and health financing specifically, and even fewer that draw lessons from experience about how to do and how to use such analysis. This paper, therefore, aims to support those developing or researching UC reforms to think both about how to conduct stakeholder analysis, and how to use it to support evidence-informed pro-poor health policy development. It presents practical lessons and ideas drawn from experience of doing stakeholder analysis around UC reforms in South Africa and Tanzania, combined with insights from other relevant material. The paper has two parts. The first presents lessons of experience for conducting a stakeholder analysis, and the second, ideas about how to use the analysis to support policy design and the development of actor and broader political management strategies. Comparison of experience across South Africa and Tanzania shows that there are some commonalities concerning which stakeholders have general interests in UC reform. However, differences in context and in reform proposals generate differences in the particular interests of stakeholders and their likely positioning on reform proposals, as well as in their relative balance of power. It is, therefore, difficult to draw cross-national policy comparisons around these specific issues. Nonetheless, the paper shows that cross-national policy learning is possible around the approach to analysis, the factors influencing judgements and the implications for, and possible approaches to, management of policy processes. Such learning does not entail generalization about which UC reform package offers most gain in any setting, but rather about how to manage the reform process within a particular context.

During the 1990s, Tanzania like many other developing countries adopted health sector reforms. The most common policy change under the health sector reforms has been decentralization, which involves the transfer of power and authority from the central level to local authorities. Based on the case study of Mbarali district in Tanzania, this paper uses a policy analysis approach to analyse the implementation of decentralized health care priority setting. Specifically, the paper examines the process, actors and contextual factors shaping decentralized health care priority setting processes. The analysis and conclusion are based on a review of documents, key informant interviews, focus group discussion, and notes from non-participant observation. The findings of the study indicate that local institutional contexts and power asymmetries among actors have a greater influence on the prioritization process at the local level than expected and intended. The paper underlines the essentially political character of the decentralization process and reiterates the need for policy analysts to pay attention to processes, institutional contexts, and the role of policy actors in shaping the implementation of the decentralization process at the district level.

Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values -such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness -that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met.REACT -"REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.

BackgroundFair processes in decision making need the involvement of stakeholders who can discuss issues and reach an agreement based on reasons that are justifiable and appropriate in meeting people’s needs. In Tanzania, the policy of decentralization and the health sector reform place an emphasis on community participation in making decisions in health care. However, aspects that can influence an individual’s opportunity to be listened to and to contribute to discussion have been researched to a very limited extent in low-income settings. The objective of this study was to explore challenges to fair decision-making processes in health care services with a special focus on the potential influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education. We draw on the principle of fairness as outlined in the deliberative democratic theory.MethodsThe study was carried out in the Mbarali District of Tanzania. A qualitative study design was used. In-depth interviews and focus group discussion were conducted among members of the district health team, local government officials, health care providers and community members. Informal discussion on the topics was also of substantial value.ResultsThe study findings indicate a substantial influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education on health care decision-making processes. Men, wealthy individuals, members of strong ethnic groups and highly educated individuals had greater influence. Opinions varied among the study informants as to whether such differences should be considered fair. The differences in levels of influence emerged most clearly at the community level, and were largely perceived as legitimate.ConclusionsExisting challenges related to individuals’ influence of decision making processes in health care need to be addressed if greater participation is desired. There is a need for increased advocacy and a strengthening of responsive practices with an emphasis on the right of all individuals to participate in decision-making processes. This simultaneously implies an emphasis on assuring the distribution of information, training and education so that individuals can participate fully in informed decision making.

BackgroundIn 2006, researchers and decision-makers launched a five-year project - Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) - to improve planning and priority-setting through implementing the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in Mbarali District, Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from the perspectives of the Council Health Management Team, local government officials, health workforce and members of user boards and committees.MethodsIndividual interviews were carried out with different categories of actors and stakeholders in the district. The interview guide consisted of a series of questions, asking respondents to describe their perceptions regarding each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in terms of priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data were used to support, verify and highlight the key issues that emerged.ResultsAlmost all stakeholders viewed Accountability for Reasonableness as an important and feasible approach for improving priority-setting and health service delivery in their context. However, a few aspects of Accountability for Reasonableness were seen as too difficult to implement given the socio-political conditions and traditions in Tanzania. Respondents mentioned: budget ceilings and guidelines, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, as well as the limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation of the framework in their context.ConclusionThis study was one of the first assessments of the applicability of Accountability for Reasonableness in health care priority-setting in Tanzania. The analysis, overall, suggests that the Accountability for Reasonableness framework could be an important tool for improving priority-setting processes in the contexts of resource-poor settings. However, the full implementation of Accountability for Reasonableness would require a proper capacity-building plan, involving all relevant stakeholders, particularly members of the community since public accountability is the ultimate aim, and it is the community that will live with the consequences of priority-setting decisions.