Procedural fairness in decision-making for financing a National Health Insurance Scheme: a case study from The Gambia.

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices, and fair processes are critical for building legitimacy and trust. In 2021, The Gambia passed its National Health Insurance (NHI) Act. We explored decision-making processes shaping the financing of the NHI scheme (NHIS) with respect to procedural fairness criteria. We reviewed policy and strategic documents on The Gambia's UHC reforms to identify key policy choices and interviewed policymakers, technocrats, lawmakers, hospital chief executive officers, private sector representatives and civil society organizations (CSOs) including key CSOs left out of the NHIS discussions. Ministerial budget discussions and virtual proceedings of the National Assembly's debate on the NHI Bill were observed. To enhance public scrutiny, Gambians were encouraged to submit views to the National Assembly's committee; however, the procedures for doing so were unclear, and it was not possible to ascertain how these inputs were used. Despite available funds to undertake countrywide public engagement, the public consultations were mostly limited to government institutions, few trade unions and a handful of urban-based CSOs. While this represented an improved approach to public policy-making, several CSOs representing key constituents and advocating for the expansion of exemption criteria for insurance premiums to include more vulnerable groups felt excluded from the process. Overload of the National Assembly's legislative schedule and lack of National Assembly committee quorum were cited as reasons for not engaging in countrywide consultations. In conclusion, although there was an intent from the Executive and National Assembly to ensure transparent, participatory and inclusive decision-making, the process fell short in these aspects. These observations should be seen in the context of The Gambia's ongoing democratic transition where institutions for procedural fairness are expected to progressively improve. Learning from this experience to enhance the procedural fairness of decision-making can promote inclusiveness, ownership and sustainability of the NHIS in The Gambia.

Developing the improved Community Health Fund in Tanzania: was it a fair process?

Tanzania developed its 2016-26 health financing strategy to address existing inequities and inefficiencies in its health financing architecture. The strategy suggested the introduction of mandatory national health insurance, which requires long-term legal, interministerial and parliamentary procedures. In 2017/18, improved Community Health Fund (iCHF) was introduced to make short-term improvements in coverage and financial risk protection for the informal sector. Improvements involved purchaser-provider split, portability of services, uniformity in premium and risk pooling at the regional level. Using qualitative methods and drawing on the policy analysis triangle framework (context, content, actors and process) and criteria for procedural fairness, we examined the decision-making process around iCHF and the extent to which it met the criteria for a fair process. Data collection involved a document review and key informant interviews (n = 12). The iCHF reform was exempt from following the mandatory legislative procedures, including processes for involving the public, for policy reforms in Tanzania. The Ministry of Health, leading the process, formed a technical taskforce to review evidence, draw lessons from pilots and develop plans for implementing iCHF. The taskforce included representatives from ministries, civil society organizations and CHF implementing partners with experience in running iCHF pilots. However, beneficiaries and providers were not included in these processes. iCHF was largely informed by the evidence from pilots and literature, but the evidence to reduce administrative cost by changing the oversight role to the National Health Insurance Fund was not taken into account. Moreover, the iCHF process lacked transparency beyond its key stakeholders. The iCHF reform provided a partial solution to fragmentation in the health financing system in Tanzania by expanding the pool from the district to regional level. However, its decision-making process underscores the significance of giving greater consideration to procedural fairness in reforms guided by technical institutions, which can enhance responsiveness, legitimacy and implementation.

Procedural fairness and the resilience of health financing reforms in Ukraine.

In 2017, Ukraine's Parliament passed legislation establishing a single health benefit package for the entire population called the Programme of Medical Guarantees, financed through general taxes and administered by a single national purchasing agency. This legislation was in line with key principles for financing universal health coverage. However, health professionals and some policymakers have been critical of elements of the reform, including its reliance on general taxes as the source of funding. Using qualitative methods and drawing on deliberative democratic theory and criteria for procedural fairness, this study argues that the acceptance and sustainability of these reforms could have been strengthened by making the decision-making process fairer. It suggests that three factors limited the extent of stakeholders' participation in this process: first, a perception among reformers that fast-paced decision-making was required because there was only a short political window for much needed reforms; second, a lack of trust among reformers in the motives, representativeness, and knowledge of some stakeholders; and third, an under-appreciation of the importance of dialogic engagement with the public. These findings highlight a profound challenge for policymakers. In retrospect, some of those involved in the reform's design and implementation believe that a more meaningful engagement with the public and stakeholders who opposed the reform might have strengthened its legitimacy and durability. At the same time, the study shows how difficult it is to have an inclusive process in settings where some actors may be driven by unconstrained self-interest or lack the capacity to be representative or knowledgeable interlocutors. It suggests that investments in deliberative capital (the attitudes and behaviours that facilitate good deliberation) and in civil society capacity may help overcome this difficulty.

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Health financing in fragile and conflict-affected settings: What do we know, seven years on?

Over the last few years, there has been growing attention to health systems research in fragile and conflict-affected setting (FCAS) from both researchers and donors. In 2012, an exploratory literature review was conducted to analyse the main themes and findings of recent literature focusing on health financing in FCAS. Seven years later, this paper presents an update of that review, reflecting on what has changed in terms of the knowledge base, and what are the on-going gaps and new challenges in our understanding of health financing in FCAS. A total of 115 documents were reviewed following a purposeful, non-systematic search of grey and published literature. Data were analysed according to key health financing themes, ensuring comparability with the 2012 review. Bibliometric analysis suggests that the field has continued to grow, and is skewed towards countries with a large donor presence (such as Afghanistan). Aid coordination remains the largest single topic within the themes, likely reflecting the dominance of external players, not just substantively but also in relation to research. Many studies are commissioned by external agencies and in addition to concerns about independence of findings there is also likely a neglect of smaller, more home-grown reforms. In addition, we find that despite efforts to coordinate approaches across humanitarian and developmental settings, the literature remains distinct between them. We highlight research gaps, including empirical analysis of domestic and external financing trends across FCAS and non-FCAS over time, to understand better common health financing trajectories, what drives them and their implications. We highlight a dearth of evidence in relation to health financing goals and objectives for UHC (such as equity, efficiency, financial access), which is significant given the relevance of UHC, and the importance of the social and political values which different health financing arrangements can communicate, which also merit in-depth study.

Can Low- and Middle-Income Countries Increase Domestic Fiscal Space for Health: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Assess Possible Sources of Expansion.

There has not been a systematic effort to synthesize findings of domestic fiscal space for health (DFSH) assessments, despite the existence of a commonly applied conceptual framework. To fill this gap and provide support to policy makers designing health financing policies toward universal health coverage (UHC), this study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the scope of possible sources of DFSH in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). First, the findings of 28 studies assessing DFSH in LMICs were reviewed. A quantitative assessment was then conducted to assess potential expansion from increased tax revenues, a greater prioritization of health in the overall budget, and improved technical efficiency of health spending in a sample of 64 LMICs. The analysis found that macroeconomic conditions and budget prioritization are the key sources of DFSH expansion in 90% of the reviewed studies. Improved efficiency was referenced as having high potential for DFSH expansion in 60% of the studies. The quantitative analysis converged with these findings and further confirmed that an increase in tax revenues is, on average, the largest source of potential DFSH expansion (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%, 96%) in the studied countries. However, even without injecting new revenues, reprioritization of budget and technical efficiency improvements could significantly expand DFSH (95% CI, 77%, 102%). While highlighting the critical role played by fiscal conditions and tax policies, the study provides strong rationale for explicitly incorporating efficiency as a core source of DFSH in a more systematic manner in future assessments.

Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to demand and use research is critical for governments if they are to develop policies that are informed by evidence. Existing tools designed to assess how government officials use evidence in decision-making have significant limitations for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); they are rarely tested in LMICs and focus only on individual capacity. This paper introduces an instrument that was developed to assess Ministry of Health (MoH) capacity to demand and use research evidence for decision-making, which was tested for reliability and validity in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Lebanon, Moldova, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia). METHODS: Instrument development was based on a new conceptual framework that addresses individual, organisational and systems capacities, and items were drawn from existing instruments and a literature review. After initial item development and pre-testing to address face validity and item phrasing, the instrument was reduced to 54 items for further validation and item reduction. In-country study teams interviewed a systematic sample of 203 MoH officials. Exploratory factor analysis was used in addition to standard reliability and validity measures to further assess the items. RESULTS: Thirty items divided between two factors representing organisational and individual capacity constructs were identified. South Africa and Zambia demonstrated the highest level of organisational capacity to use research, whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh were the lowest two. In contrast, individual capacity was highest in Pakistan, followed by South Africa, whereas Bangladesh and Lebanon were the lowest. CONCLUSION: The framework and related instrument represent a new opportunity for MoHs to identify ways to understand and improve capacities to incorporate research evidence in decision-making, as well as to provide a basis for tracking change.

Effectiveness of a pay-for-performance intervention to improve maternal and child health services in Afghanistan: a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: A cluster randomized trial of a pay-for-performance (P4P) scheme was implemented in Afghanistan to test whether P4P could improve maternal and child (MCH) services. METHODS: All 442 primary care facilities in 11 provinces were matched by type of facility and outpatient volume, and randomly assigned to the P4P or comparison arm. P4P facilities were given bonus payments based on the MCH services provided. An endline household sample survey was conducted in 72 randomly selected matched pair catchment areas (3421 P4P households; 3427 comparison).The quality of services was assessed in 81 randomly sampled matched pairs of facilities. Data collectors and households were blinded to the intervention assignment. MCH outcomes were assessed at the cluster level. RESULTS: There were no substantial differences in any of the five MCH coverage indicators (P4P vs comparison): modern contraception(10.7% vs 11.2% (P = 0.90); antenatal care: 56.2% vs 55.6% (P = 0.94); skilled birth attendance (33.9% vs 28.5%, P = 0.17); postnatal care (31.2% vs 30.3%, P = 0.98); and childhood pentavalent3 vaccination (49.6 vs 52.3%, P = 0.41), or in the equity measures. There were substantial increases in the quality of history and physical examinations index (P = 0.01); client counselling index (P = 0.01); and time spent with patients (P = 0.05). Health workers reported limited understanding about the bonuses. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had minimal effect, possibly due to difficulties communicating with health workers and inattention to demand-side factors. P4P interventions need to consider management and community demand issues.