Stakeholders’ perspectives and willingness to institutionalize linkages between the formal health system and informal healthcare providers in urban slums in southeast, Nigeria

Background The widely available informal healthcare providers (IHPs) present opportunities to improve access to appropriate essential health services in underserved urban areas in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, they are not formally linked to the formal health system. This study was conducted to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders about institutionalizing linkages between the formal health systems and IHPs, as a strategy for improving access to appropriate healthcare services in Nigeria. Methods Data was collected from key stakeholders in the formal and informal health systems, whose functions cover the major slums in Enugu and Onitsha cities in southeast Nigeria. Key informant interviews (n = 43) were conducted using semi-structured interview guides among representatives from the formal and informal health sectors. Interview transcripts were read severally, and using thematic content analysis, recurrent themes were identified and used for a narrative synthesis. Results Although the dominant view among respondents is that formalization of linkages between IHPs and the formal health system will likely create synergy and quality improvement in health service delivery, anxieties and defensive pessimism were equally expressed. On the one hand, formal sector respondents are pessimistic about limited skills, poor quality of care, questionable recognition, and the enormous challenges of managing a pluralistic health system. Conversely, the informal sector pessimists expressed uncertainty about the outcomes of a government-led supervision and the potential negative impact on their practice. Some of the proposed strategies for institutionalizing linkages between the two health sub-systems include: sensitizing relevant policymakers and gatekeepers to the necessity of pluralistic healthcare; mapping and documenting of informal providers and respective service their areas for registration and accreditation, among others. Perceived threats to institutionalizing these linkages include: weak supervision and monitoring of informal providers by the State Ministry of Health due to lack of funds for logistics; poor data reporting and late referrals from informal providers; lack of referral feedback from formal to informal providers, among others. Conclusions Opportunities and constraints to institutionalize linkages between the formal health system and IHPs exist in Nigeria. However, there is a need to design an inclusive system that ensures tolerance, dignity, and mutual learning for all stakeholders in the country and in other LMICs

Was the Maternal Health Cash Transfer Programme in Nigeria Sustainable and Cost-Effective?

Background: The Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P), Maternal and Child Health (MCH) was introduced by the Nigerian government to increase the use of skilled maternal health services and reduce maternal mortality. The programme, funded out of a reduction in the fuel subsidy, was implemented between October 2012 and April 2015 and incorporated a conditional cash transfer to women to encourage use of facility based maternal services. We seek to assess the incremental cost effectiveness and long term impact of the conditional cash transfer element of the programme. Methods: An impact analysis and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) is undertaken taking a health service perspective toward costs of the intervention. The study was undertaken in Anambra state, comparing areas that received only the investment in health services with areas that implemented the conditional cash transfer programme. An interrupted time series analysis of the programme outputs was undertaken. These were combined with a programme costing to determine the incremental cost per output. Findings: Maternal services provided to patients in conditional cash transfer areas accelerated rapidly from the middle of 2014 until after the programme in late 2015. The costs of providing services in each Primary Health Center facility was US $52,128 in the areas that only invested in health services compared to US$90,702 in facilities that also provided cash transfers. Much of the additional cost was in managing cash transfers. The incremental cost in the cash transfer areas was $572 for delivery care and$11 for antenatal care. If the programme was to be integrated as a regular service in the public health system, the cost of a delivery is estimated to fall to $389 and to$188 if 2015 levels of activity are assumed. Conclusion: Although the cost of CCTs as originally constituted as a vertical programme are relatively high compared to other similar programmes, these would fall substantially if integrated into the main health system. There is also evidence of sustained impact beyond the end of the funding suggesting that short term programmes can lead to a long-term change in patterns of health seeking behavior