Who Needs Big Health Sector Reforms Anyway? Seychelles' Road to UHC Provides Lessons for Sub-Saharan Africa and Island Nations.

The road to universal health coverage (UHC) needs not be driven by big reforms that include the initiation of health insurance, provider-funder separation, results-based financing, or other large health sector reforms advocated in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The Seychelles experience, documented through a series of analytical products like public expenditure reviews and supporting surveys with assistance from the World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO), shows an alternative, more incremental reform road to UHC, with important lessons to the region and other small-population or island nations. Done well, in some countries, a basic supply-side funded, publicly owned and operated, and integrated health system can produce excellent health outcomes in a cost-effective and sustainable way. The article traces some of the factors that facilitated this success in the Seychelles, including high political commitment, strong voice and a downward accountability culture, strong public health functions, and an impressive investment in primary health care. These factors help explain past successes and also provide a good basis for adaptation of health systems to dramatic shifts in the epidemiological and demographic transitions, disease outbreaks, and rising public expectation and demand for high quality of care. Once again, how the Seychelles responds can show the way for other countries in the region and elsewhere regardless of the types of reforms countries engage in.

Myriad of Health Care Financing Reforms in Zambia: Have the Poor Benefited?

Zambia has implemented a number of financing and organizational reforms since the 1990s aimed at increasing efficiency, enhancing equity, and improving health outcomes. This study reviews the distributional impact of these health reforms on enhancing equity at the regional level and for different socioeconomic groups. Data from three nationally representative household surveys were collected, and a benefit incidence analysis was conducted to determine the distributional impact over the period 2010-2015. The results show that distribution of subsidies and utilization of outpatient services at public health facilities in Zambia has consistently been in favor of urban provinces. Further, distribution of health subsidies across the ten provinces in Zambia does not correspond to reported illnesses in each province. The study also shows that utilization of outpatient services at public (hospitals and health centers) and private health facilities is generally in favor of the rich, and utilization of both inpatient and outpatient services at public and private health facilities benefits the rich more than the poor. And although the results show a pro-poor redistribution of benefits across income groups in 2015 compared to 2010 whereby the poorest two income groups received more than a 20% share of benefits in each quintile, the benefits were still lower than their health needs. This is contrary to the richest two income groups whose share of benefits was higher than their health needs in both 2010 and 2015. The study concludes that Zambia has not yet fully attained its long-term health reform vision of "equity of access to quality health care" despite years of successive health reforms. The study calls for the Zambian government to complement strategies on financial risk protection with deliberate supply- and demand-side actions in order to enhance equity. Improvements in long- and short-term planning and regular monitoring and evaluation are critical.