Health financing reform in Uganda: How equitable is the proposed National Health Insurance scheme?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Uganda is proposing introduction of the National Health Insurance scheme (NHIS) in a phased manner with the view to obtaining additional funding for the health sector and promoting financial risk protection. In this paper, we have assessed the proposed NHIS from an equity perspective, exploring the extent to which NHIS would improve existing disparities in the health sector.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the proposed design and other relevant documents that enhanced our understanding of contextual issues. We used the Kutzin and fair financing frameworks to critically assess the impact of NHIS on overall equity in financing in Uganda.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The introduction of NHIS is being proposed against the backdrop of inequalities in the distribution of health system inputs between rural and urban areas, different levels of care and geographic areas. In this assessment, we find that gradual implementation of NHIS will result in low coverage initially, which might pose a challenge for effective management of the scheme. The process for accreditation of service providers during the first phase is not explicit on how it will ensure that a two-tier service provision arrangement does not emerge to cater for different types of patients. If the proposed fee-for-service mechanism of reimbursing providers is pursued, utilisation patterns will determine how resources are allocated. This implies that equity in resource allocation will be determined by the distribution of accredited providers, and checks put in place to prohibit frivolous use. The current design does not explicitly mention how these two issues will be tackled. Lastly, there is no clarity on how the NHIS will fit into, and integrate within existing financing mechanisms.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Under the current NHIS design, the initial low coverage in the first years will inhibit optimal achievement of the important equity characteristics of pooling, cross-subsidisation and financial protection. Depending on the distribution of accredited providers and utilisation patterns, the NHIS could worsen existing disparities in access to services, given the fee-for-service reimbursement mechanisms currently proposed. Lastly, if equity in financing and resource allocation are not explicit objectives of the NHIS, it might inadvertently worsen the existing disparities in service provision.</p

Should countries implementing an artemisinin-based combination malaria treatment policy also introduce rapid diagnostic tests?

BACKGROUND: Within the context of increasing antimalarial costs and or decreasing malaria transmission, the importance of limiting antimalarial treatment to only those confirmed as having malaria parasites becomes paramount. This motivates for this assessment of the cost-effectiveness of routine use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as an integral part of deploying artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). METHODS: The costs and cost-effectiveness of using RDTs to limit the use of ACTs to those who actually have Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia in two districts in southern Mozambique were assessed. To evaluate the potential impact of introducing definitive diagnosis using RDTs (costing $0.95), five scenarios were considered, assuming that the use of definitive diagnosis would find that between 25$1.77 per adult treatment and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) costing $2.40 per adult treatment, as well as the option of restricting RDT use to only those older than six years. Sensitivity analyses considered lower cost ACTs and RDTs and different population age distributions. RESULTS: Compared to treating patients on the basis of clinical diagnosis, the use of RDTs in all clinically diagnosed malaria cases results in cost savings only when 29$2.12. When more than 29% of clinically diagnosed cases are malaria test positive, the incremental cost per malaria positive patient treated is less than US$1. When relatively less expensive ACTs are introduced (e.g. current WHO preferential price for AL of$1.44 per adult treatment), the RDT price to the healthcare provider should be $0.65 or lower for RDTs to be cost saving in populations with between 30 and 52% of clinically diagnosed malaria cases being malaria test positive. CONCLUSION: While the use of RDTs in all suspected cases has been shown to be cost-saving when parasite prevalence among clinically diagnosed malaria cases is low to moderate, findings show that targeting RDTs at the group older than six years and treating children less than six years on the basis of clinical diagnosis is even more cost-saving. In semi-immune populations, young children carry the highest risk of severe malaria and many healthcare providers would find it harder to deny antimalarials to those who test negative in this age group

Assessing catastrophic and impoverishing effects of health care payments in Uganda

Background: Direct out-of-pocket payments for health care are recognised as limiting access to health care services and also endangering the welfare of households. In Uganda, such payments comprise a large portion of total health financing. This study assesses the catastrophic and impoverishing impact of paying for health care out-of-pocket in Uganda. Methods: Using data from the Uganda National Household Surveys 2009/10, the catastrophic impact of out-of-pocket health care payments is defined using thresholds that vary with household income. The impoverishing effect of out-of-pocket health care payments is assessed using the Ugandan national poverty line and the World Bank poverty line ($1.25/day). Results: A high level and intensity of both financial catastrophe and impoverishment due to out-of-pocket payments are recorded. Using an initial threshold of 10$1.25/day and the Ugandan poverty lines, about 4% of the population are further impoverished by such payments. This represents a relative increase in poverty head count of 17.1% and 18.1% respectively. Conclusion: The absence of financial protection in Uganda’s health system calls for concerted action. Currently, out-of-pocket payments account for a large share of total health financing and there is no pooled prepayment system available. There is therefore a need to move towards mandatory prepayment. In this way, people could access the needed health services without any associated financial consequence

Cost of malaria morbidity in Uganda

Background: The high burden of malaria, among others, is a key challenge to both human and economic development in malaria endemic countries. The impact of malaria can be categorized from three dimensions, namely: health, social and economic. The economic dimension focuses on three types of effects, namely: direct, indirect and intangible effects which are felt at both macro and micro levels. The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of malaria morbidity in Uganda using the cost-of-illness approach. Methods: The study covered 4 districts, which were selected randomly after stratification by malaria endemicity into Hyper endemic (Kamuli and Mubende districts); Meso endemic (Mubende) and Hypo endemic (Kabale). A survey was undertaken to collect data on cost of illness at the household level while data on institutional costs was collected from the Ministry of Health and Development Partners. Results: Our study revealed that: (i) in 2003, the Ugandan economy lost a total of about US$658,200,599 (US$24.8 per capita) due to 12,343,411 cases malaria; (ii) the total consisted of US$49,122,349 (7$ 609,078,209 (92%) indirect costs or productivity losses; (iv) the total malaria treatment-related spending was US$46,134,999; out of which 90$2,987,351 was spent on malaria prevention; out of which 81% was borne by MOH and development partners. Conclusion: Malaria poses a heavy economic burden on households, which may expose them to financial catastrophe and impoverishment. This calls for the upholding of the no-user fees policy as well as increased investments in improving access to quality of health services and to proven community preventive interventions in order to further reduce the cost of illness borne by patients and their families

Cost of malaria morbidity in Uganda

The high burden of malaria, among others, is a key challenge to both human and economic development in malaria endemic countries. The impact of malaria can be categorized from three dimensions, namely: health, social and economic. The economic dimension focuses on three types of effects, namely: direct, indirect and intangible effects which are felt at both macro and micro levels. The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of malaria morbidity in Uganda using the cost-of-illness approach. The study covered 4 districts, which were selected randomly after stratification by malaria endemicity into Hyper endemic (Kamuli and Mubende districts); Meso endemic (Mubende) and Hypo endemic (Kabale). A survey was undertaken to collect data on cost of illness at the household level while data on institutional costs was collected from the Ministry of Health and Development Partners. Our study revealed that: (i) in 2003, the Ugandan economy lost a total of about US$658,200,599 (US$24.8 per capita) due to 12,343,411 cases malaria; (ii) the total consisted of US$49,122,349 (7$ 609,078,209 (92%) indirect costs or productivity losses; (iv) the total malaria treatment-related spending was US$46,134,999; out of which 90$2,987,351 was spent on malaria prevention; out of which 81% was borne by MOH and development partners.  Malaria poses a heavy economic burden on households, which may expose them to financial catastrophe and impoverishment. This calls for the upholding of the no-user fees policy as well as increased investments in improving access to quality of health services and to proven community preventive interventions in order to further reduce the cost of illness borne by patients and their families. Key words: Cost of illness, malaria, Ugand

Estimates of child deaths prevented from malaria prevention scale-up in Africa 2001-2010

Funding from external agencies for malaria control in Africa has increased dramatically over the past decade resulting in substantial increases in population coverage by effective malaria prevention interventions. This unprecedented effort to scale-up malaria interventions is likely improving child survival and will likely contribute to meeting Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 to reduce the < 5 mortality rate by two thirds between 1990 and 2015.\ud The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) model was used to quantify the likely impact that malaria prevention intervention scale-up has had on malaria mortality over the past decade (2001-2010) across 43 malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan African. The likely impact of ITNs and malaria prevention interventions in pregnancy (intermittent preventive treatment [IPTp] and ITNs used during pregnancy) over this period was assessed. The LiST model conservatively estimates that malaria prevention intervention scale-up over the past decade has prevented 842,800 (uncertainty: 562,800-1,364,645) child deaths due to malaria across 43 malaria-endemic countries in Africa, compared to a baseline of the year 2000. Over the entire decade, this represents an 8.2% decrease in the number of malaria-caused child deaths that would have occurred over this period had malaria prevention coverage remained unchanged since 2000. The biggest impact occurred in 2010 with a 24.4% decrease in malaria-caused child deaths compared to what would have happened had malaria prevention interventions not been scaled-up beyond 2000 coverage levels. ITNs accounted for 99% of the lives saved. The results suggest that funding for malaria prevention in Africa over the past decade has had a substantial impact on decreasing child deaths due to malaria. Rapidly achieving and then maintaining universal coverage of these interventions should be an urgent priority for malaria control programmes in the future. Successful scale-up in many African countries will likely contribute substantially to meeting MDG 4, as well as succeed in meeting MDG 6 (Target 1) to halt and reverse malaria incidence by 2015

Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

Background: Equity in health care entails payment for health services according to the capacity to pay and the receipt of benefits according to need. In Uganda, as in many African countries, although equity is extolled in government policy documents, not much is known about who pays for, and who benefits from, health services. This paper assesses both equity in the financing and distribution of health care benefits in Uganda. Methods: Data are drawn from the most recent nationally representative Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10. Equity in health financing is assessed considering the main domestic health financing sources (i.e., taxes and direct out-of-pocket payments). This is achieved using bar charts and standard concentration and Kakwani indices. Benefit incidence analysis is used to assess the distribution of health services for both public and non-public providers across socio-economic groups and the need for care. Need is assessed using limitations in functional ability while socioeconomic groups are created using per adult equivalent consumption expenditure. Results: Overall, health financing in Uganda is marginally progressive; the rich pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor. The various taxes are more progressive than out-of-pocket payments (e.g., the Kakwani index of personal income tax is 0.195 compared with 0.064 for out-of-pocket payments). However, taxes are a much smaller proportion of total health sector financing compared with out-of-pocket payments. The distribution of total health sector services benefitsis pro-rich. The richest quintile receives 19.2% of total benefits compared to the 17.9% received by the poorest quintile. The rich also receive a much higher share of benefits relative to their need. Benefits from public health units are pro-poor while hospital based care, in both public and non-public sectors are pro-rich. Conclusion: There is a renewed interest in ensuring equity in the financing and use of health services. Based on the results in this paper, it would seem that in order to safeguard such equity, there is a need for policy that focuses on addressing the health needs of the poor while continuing to ensure that the burden of financing health services does not rest disproportionately on the poor

Increasing Access to Surgical Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Priorities for National and International Agencies Recommended by the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group

In this Policy Forum, the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group, which was formed to advocate for increased access to surgery in Africa, recommends four priority areas for national and international agencies to target in order to address the surgical burden of disease in sub-Saharan Africa