Has decentralisation affected child immunisation status in Indonesia?

Background: The past two decades have seen many countries, including a number in Southeast Asia, decentralising their health system with the expectation that this reform will improve their citizens’ health. However, the consequences of this reform remain largely unknown. Objective: This study analyses the effects of fiscal decentralisation on child immunisation status in Indonesia. Design: We used multilevel logistic regression analysis to estimate these effects, and multilevel multiple imputation to manage missing data. The 2011 publication of Indonesia's national socio-economic survey (Susenas) is the source of household data, while the Podes village census survey from the same year provides village-level data. We supplement these with local government fiscal data from the Ministry of Finance. Results: The findings show that decentralising the fiscal allocation of responsibilities to local governments has a lack of association with child immunisation status and the results are robust. The results also suggest that increasing the number of village health centres (posyandu) per 1,000 population improves probability of children to receive full immunisation significantly, while increasing that of hospitals and health centres (puskesmas) has no significant effect. Conclusion: These findings suggest that merely decentralising the health system does not guarantee improvement in a country's immunisation coverage. Any successful decentralisation demands good capacity and capability of local governments

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: : A framework and recommendations for further research

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders – not only the technical capacity to “do” research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers’ needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact

A qualitative study of DRG coding practice in hospitals under the Thai Universal Coverage Scheme

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the Thai Universal Coverage health insurance scheme, hospital providers are paid for their inpatient care using Diagnosis Related Group-based retrospective payment, for which quality of the diagnosis and procedure codes is crucial. However, there has been limited understandings on which health care professions are involved and how the diagnosis and procedure coding is actually done within hospital settings. The objective of this study is to detail hospital coding structure and process, and to describe the roles of key hospital staff, and other related internal dynamics in Thai hospitals that affect quality of data submitted for inpatient care reimbursement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Research involved qualitative semi-structured interview with 43 participants at 10 hospitals chosen to represent a range of hospital sizes (small/medium/large), location (urban/rural), and type (public/private).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hospital Coding Practice has structural and process components. While the structural component includes human resources, hospital committee, and information technology infrastructure, the process component comprises all activities from patient discharge to submission of the diagnosis and procedure codes. At least eight health care professional disciplines are involved in the coding process which comprises seven major steps, each of which involves different hospital staff: 1) Discharge Summarization, 2) Completeness Checking, 3) Diagnosis and Procedure Coding, 4) Code Checking, 5) Relative Weight Challenging, 6) Coding Report, and 7) Internal Audit. The hospital coding practice can be affected by at least five main factors: 1) Internal Dynamics, 2) Management Context, 3) Financial Dependency, 4) Resource and Capacity, and 5) External Factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Hospital coding practice comprises both structural and process components, involves many health care professional disciplines, and is greatly varied across hospitals as a result of five main factors.</p