MyMedR

Displaying publications 21 - 25 of 25 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models

McGuire F, Vijayasingham L, Vassall A, Small R, Webb D, Guthrie T, et al.

Global Health, 2019 12 18;15(1):86.
PMID: 31849335 DOI: 10.1186/s12992-019-0513-7

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility.
AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded.
RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.

Matched MeSH terms: Healthcare Financing*
Fulltext Healthcare inequalities: the United States vs India

Mohamad Nasaruddin Mahdzir, Izwan Effendy Zainuddin, Sharifa Ezat Wan Puteh

Int J Public Health Res, 2012;2(2):177-183.
MyJurnal

The relationship between healthcare services and inequalities is more likely when a group that shares a salient identity faces severe inequalities of various kinds. Such inequalities may be catalyzed by economic, social, political or concern cultural status. The objectives of this review are to identify the issues and challenges involve in healthcare inequalities, to compare factors contributes to healthcare inequalities and to purpose suggestions and recommendations for improvement based on issues and challenges between United States and India. Comparing annual year healthcare report, documentation of healthcare institutional, Ministry of Health's report and circular, official institutional website, scientific healthcare journals, articles and reports published in 1994 until 2011 regarding healthcare inequalities between United States and India. Health inequalities in the healthcare system contributed by the different in socioeconomic status and accessibility to the healthcare facility due to high cost of treatment has been common risk 'Catastrophic' factors to the inequalities in both countries. Health financing system and resource allocation that benefit only the upper class social spectrum of the population. Disparities occur due to the imbalance in distribution of wealth, discrimination and change in the world economy. Adapting healthcare system that provides care to all classes of people need improvement as no healthcare system is perfect. This matter must be tackle urgently as it's a matter of national concern.

Matched MeSH terms: Healthcare Financing
Fulltext The political economy of health financing reform in Malaysia

Croke K, Mohd Yusoff MB, Abdullah Z, Mohd Hanafiah AN, Mokhtaruddin K, Ramli ES, et al.

Health Policy Plan, 2019 Dec 01;34(10):732-739.
PMID: 31563946 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czz089

There is growing evidence that political economy factors are central to whether or not proposed health financing reforms are adopted, but there is little consensus about which political and institutional factors determine the fate of reform proposals. One set of scholars see the relative strength of interest groups in favour of and opposed to reform as the determining factor. An alternative literature identifies aspects of a country's political institutions-specifically the number and strength of formal 'veto gates' in the political decision-making process-as a key predictor of reform's prospects. A third group of scholars highlight path dependence and 'policy feedback' effects, stressing that the sequence in which health policies are implemented determines the set of feasible reform paths, since successive policy regimes bring into existence patterns of public opinion and interest group mobilization which can lock in the status quo. We examine these theories in the context of Malaysia, a successful health system which has experienced several instances of proposed, but ultimately blocked, health financing reforms. We argue that policy feedback effects on public opinion were the most important factor inhibiting changes to Malaysia's health financing system. Interest group opposition was a closely related factor; this opposition was particularly powerful because political leaders perceived that it had strong public support. Institutional veto gates, by contrast, played a minimal role in preventing health financing reform in Malaysia. Malaysia's dramatic early success at achieving near-universal access to public sector healthcare at low cost created public opinion resistant to any change which could threaten the status quo. We conclude by analysing the implications of these dynamics for future attempts at health financing reform in Malaysia.

Matched MeSH terms: Healthcare Financing*
Fulltext Financing the future of WHO

Gostin LO, Klock KA, Clark H, Diop FZ, Jayasuriya D, Mahmood J, et al.

Lancet, 2022 Apr 16;399(10334):1445-1447.
PMID: 35338858 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00533-5
Matched MeSH terms: Healthcare Financing*
Fulltext Equity in Health Care Financing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Studies Using Benefit and Financing Incidence Analyses

Asante A, Price J, Hayen A, Jan S, Wiseman V

PLoS One, 2016;11(4):e0152866.
PMID: 27064991 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152866

INTRODUCTION: Health financing reforms in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) over the past decades have focused on achieving equity in financing of health care delivery through universal health coverage. Benefit and financing incidence analyses are two analytical methods for comprehensively evaluating how well health systems perform on these objectives. This systematic review assesses progress towards equity in health care financing in LMICs through the use of BIA and FIA.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.

Matched MeSH terms: Healthcare Financing*