Results-based financing in health: from evidence to implementation

McIsaac, Michelle; Kutzin, Joseph; Dale, Elina; Soucat, Agnès

doi:10.2471/blt.18.222968

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, PBF can be an entry point towards more strategic purchasing, if well integrated and designed to be scaled up.” 18 Later that year, the WHO's director for health financing also presented PBF as an entry point for strategic purchasing 19 . Another health financing working paper suggested that progress towards UHC involved a “move towards strategic purchasing, which seeks to align funding and incentives with promised health services.” 4 A WHO staff publication asserted that “[f]irst and foremost, P4P [pay‐for‐performance] is a strategic purchasing tool ….” 20 Another one states that “facility financial autonomy supported by pay‐for‐performance is key for ensuring progress towards strategic purchasing.” 21 Even more recently, the link between PBF and strategic purchasing was solidified via a claim that under passive purchasing (the opposite of strategic purchasing) there are “few if any financial incentives for providers to do better.” 5 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Paul

Brown

Ridde

2020

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Strategic purchasing is branded as an approach that is necessary for progress towards universal health coverage. While we agree that publicly purchased health services should respond to society's needs and patient expectations, and thus generally endorse strategic purchasing, here we would like to explore two emerging concerns within current discussions in low‐ and middle‐income countries. First, there exists a great deal of misunderstanding and conceptual unclarity, within practitioner groups, around the concept of strategic purchasing and what instruments it incorporates. Second, there is a growing trend to regularly fuse strategic purchasing into a performance‐based financing (PBF) discourse in ways that increasingly blur their distinctive properties and policy orientations, while perhaps too easily obfuscating potential tensions. We believe the discourse on strategic purchasing would benefit from better conceptual clarity by dissociating and prioritising its two objectives, namely: priority should be given to needs‐based allocation of resources, while rewarding performance is a subsequent concern. We argue there is a need for a more thoroughgoing conceptual and empirical re‐examination of strategic purchasing's priorities, its link with PBF, as well as for a wider evidence‐base on what strategic purchasing tools exist and which are most appropriate for diverse contexts.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Paul

Brown

Ridde

2020

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, while more rigorous evaluation studies will try to build counterfactual scenarios examining what would have happened without the proposed state interventions (Duflo, Glennerster, & Kremer, 2008), the urgency of addressing the crisis mandates more data-driven approaches with more operational indicators of implementation and progress (Liebman, 2018). Based on these indicators, governments can also craft outcome-and results-based contracts with private operators and ventures engaged in state-sponsored discovery and coordinated action (McIsaac, Kutzin, Dale, & Soucat, 2018).…”

Section: Exit Strategies: Limiting Post-crisis Dependence On Leviathanmentioning

confidence: 99%

O Leviatã como uma cura parcial? Oportunidades e armadilhas no uso do aparato estatal para responder à crise da COVID-19

Lazzarini

Musacchio

2020

Rev. Adm. Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While some argue that market forces are imperative to stimulate the increased supply of critical products and services to address the COVID-19 crisis, others contend that dealing with the pandemic requires coordination and rapid adjustments in supply that may be constrained by a host of factors. Although discussions have centered on policies to promote financial liquidity, we examine whether the state apparatus-not only state-owned enterprises but also development agencies and investment funds-can innovate and adjust production processes to improve infrastructure and capabilities to prevent and treat the disease. Potential actions include public-private effort addressing both discovery and coordination problems-such as a collaborative effort to develop prevention and treatment technologies, as well as state capital to stimulate retooling and expansion of strategic infrastructure. The state apparatus can also help access remote and critical areas with relatively lower private returns. In contrast, support to industries must be implemented with caution, especially for sectors whose demand may suffer permanently due to lifestyle changes. Exit strategies must be carefully crafted to avoid the risk of perpetuating unjustified and ineffective state support, establishing milestones and termination clauses based on clear performance indicators. We argue that, although using the state apparatus as a countermeasure entails a set of risks, not using it may increase the risk of extending the crisis and end with an overloaded state sector (e.g., due to massive bailouts), challenging the implementation of subsequent adjustments.

show abstract

“…A selection of payment mechanisms is featured to demonstrate their potential influence on FP quality. However, ideally performance of individual payment mechanisms would be considered holistically in a mixed provider payment system (McIsaac, 2018).…”

Section: Package: What To Purchasementioning

confidence: 99%

Positioning family planning quality within health financing for UHC: Connecting the discourse

Appleford¹,

RamaRao²,

Bellows³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This brief targets the 'bridge' constituency that is coalescing between the health financing and FP communities of practice around a shared interest in making access to health services universal. With this brief, we aim to identify opportunities for the FP community of practice to advocate for the inclusion of quality, voluntary, and equitable FP services within UHC and health financing discussions. METHODOLOGY AND OUTLINE This technical brief drew on selected published and grey literature on quality of care, FP and UHC. The technical brief is divided into four sections: • Section 1: outlines the quality and the UHC agenda, their grounding in rights, challenges with measurement, and how financing arrangements may affect quality • Section 2: outlines quality and FP, its client-oriented genesis, challenges with routine measurement, and efforts to analyze FP performance within financing arrangements • Section 3: outlines quality and strategic purchasing for FP, using the five Ps analytical framework to illustrate implications for the provision of quality FP services • Section 4: summarizes three important aspects of strategic purchasing for FP quality-the use of FP data and evidence to inform purchasing, FP quality by design and FP quality by implementation within purchasing schemes

show abstract

Results-based financing in health: from evidence to implementation

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low‐ and middle‐income countries

O Leviatã como uma cura parcial? Oportunidades e armadilhas no uso do aparato estatal para responder à crise da COVID-19

Positioning family planning quality within health financing for UHC: Connecting the discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About