Building implementable packages for universal health coverage

Lancet (London, England), 2015

In recent years, many countries have adopted universal health coverage (UHC) as a national aspiration. In response to increasing demand for a systematic assessment of global experiences with UHC, the Government of Japan and the World Bank collaborated on a 2-year multicountry research programme to analyse the processes of moving towards UHC. The programme included 11 countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Peru, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam), representing diverse geographical, economic, and historical contexts. The study identified common challenges and opportunities and useful insights for how to move towards UHC. The study showed that UHC is a complex process, fraught with challenges, many possible pathways, and various pitfalls-but is also feasible and achievable. Movement towards UHC is a long-term policy engagement that needs both technical knowledge and political know-how. Technical solutions need to be accompanied by pragmatic and innovative...

2016

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 2012

Fragmented management approach makes the provision of comprehensive health care for achieving universal health coverage very unlikely. This article aims to explore the potential contribution of a systemic approach-the sector-wide approach (SWAp)-to achieving universal health coverage (UHC), using the Mongolian context as an example. The paper describes UHC and factors that hinder its achievement in developing countries, based on the Mongolian experience. The analysis focuses on the root factors hindering the achievement of UHC and examines how these affect system and local capacity critical for achieving UHC. Two principally different approaches, a sectorwide (holistic) approach and a standalone project (fragmented) approach are compared in terms of their contribution to the main indicators of achieving UHC. The current stage of the Mongolian health SWAp is identified and early rewards of a SWAp are presented. The paper proposes a SWAp as a potential approach to tackle these root factors to help in achieving UHC, because it is a promising instrument that promotes a systems-strengthening and capacity-building approach to enable effective coordination of standalone projects in alignment with the national priorities.

In responses to Norheim’s editorial, this commentary offers reflections from Thailand, how the five unacceptable trade-offs were applied to the universal health coverage (UHC) reforms between 1975 and 2002 when the whole 64 million people were covered by one of the three public health insurance systems. This commentary aims to generate global discussions on how best UHC can be gradually achieved. Not only the proposed five discrete tradeoffs within each dimension, there are also trade-offs between the three dimensions of UHC such as population coverage, service coverage and cost coverage. Findings from Thai UHC show that equity is applied for the population coverage extension, when the low income households and the informal sector were the priority population groups for coverage extension by different prepayment schemes in 1975 and 1984, respectively. With an exception of public sector employees who were historically covered as part of fringe benefits were covered well before the poor. The private sector employees were covered last in 1990. Historically, Thailand applied a comprehensive benefit package where a few items are excluded using the negative list; until there was improved capacities on technology assessment that cost-effectiveness are used for the inclusion of new interventions into the benefit package. Not only costeffectiveness, but long term budget impact, equity and ethical considerations are taken into account. Cost coverage is mostly determined by the fiscal capacities. Close ended budget with mix of provider payment methods are used as a tool for trade-off service coverage and financial risk protection. Introducing copayment in the context of feefor-service can be harmful to beneficiaries due to supplier induced demands, inefficiency and unpredictable out of pocket payment by households. UHC achieves favorable outcomes as it was implemented when there was a full geographical coverage of primary healthcare coverage in all districts and sub-districts after three decade of health infrastructure investment and health workforce development since 1980s. The legacy of targeting population group by different prepayment mechanisms, leading to fragmentation, discrepancies and inequity across schemes, can be rectified by harmonization at the early phase when these schemes were introduced. Robust public accountability and participation mechanisms are recommended when deciding the UHC strategy.

Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 9): Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, 2017

BMJ Global Health, 2017

2016

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) World Health Report 2010, “Health systems financing, the path to universal coverage,” promoted universal health coverage (UHC) as an aspirational objective for country health systems. Yet, in addition to the dimensions of services and coverage, distribution of coverage in the population, and financial risk protection highlighted by the report, the consideration of the budget constraint should be further strengthened in the ensuing debate on resource allocation toward UHC. Beyond the substantial financial constraints faced by low- and middle-income countries, additional considerations, such as the geographical context, the underlying country infrastructure, and the architecture of health systems, determine the feasibility, effectiveness, quality and cost of healthcare delivery. Therefore, increased production and use of local evidence tied to the criteria of health benefits, equity, financial risk protection, and costs accompanying health delivery are needed so that to highlight pathways and acceptable trade-offs toward UHC.

Background: Universal health coverage (UHC) is a very important and effective policy in the health system of countries worldwide. Using the experiences and learning from the best practices of successful countries in the UHC can be very helpful. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to provide a scoping review of successful global interventions and practices in achieving UHC.Methods: The present study is a scoping review study has conducted using the Arkesy and O'Malley framework. To gather information the databases of Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, SID and MagIran have searched using the keywords of Universal health coverage, Universal healthcare coverage, Universal health care coverage, Strength*, Transfer*, interventions, improve*, program*, innovations, initiative, Financing, "Service delivery", Stewardship, "Resource generation", from 2000 to 2019. Content-Analysis was also used to analyze the data.Results: Out of 4257 articles, 57 evi...

BMJ Global Health

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and...

Health and Human Rights Journal, 2016

The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.