Why do many basic packages of health services stay on the shelf? A look at potential reasons in the WHO South-East Asia Region.

Basic packages of health services (BPHSs) are often envisaged primarily as political statements of intent to provide access to care, in an era of commitment to universal health coverage. They are often produced with little attention paid to health systems' capacity to deliver these benefit packages or other implementation challenges. Many countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asia Region have invested in developing BPHSs. This perspective paper reflects on the issues that do not receive enough attention when packages are developed, which can often jeopardize their implementation. Countries of the region refer to burden-of-disease assessments and consider the cost-effectiveness of the listed interventions during their BPHS design processes. Some also conduct a costing study to generate "price tags" that are used for resource mobilization. However, important implementation challenges such as weak supply-side readiness, limited scope for reallocation of existing resources and management not geared for accountability are too often ignored. Implementation and its monitoring is further hampered by the limitations of existing health information systems, which are often not ready to collect and analyse data on emerging interventions such as noncommunicable disease management. Among the countries of the WHO South-East Asia Region, those with better chances of executing their BPHSs have adapted their packages to their implementation, financing and monitoring capacities, and have considered the need for a modified service delivery model able to provide the agreed services.

Financial protection analysis in eight countries in the WHO South-East Asia Region.

OBJECTIVE: To document the financial protection status of eight countries of the South-East Asian region and to investigate the main components of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care. METHODS: We calculated two financial protection indicators using data from living standards surveys or household income and expenditure surveys in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste. First, we calculated the incidence of catastrophic health expenditure, defined as the proportion of the population spending more than 10% or 25% of their total household expenditure on health. Second, using World Bank poverty lines, we determined the impoverishing effect of health-care spending by households. We also conducted an analysis of the main components of out-of-pocket expenditure. RESULTS: Across countries in this study, 242.7 million people experienced catastrophic health expenditure at the 10% threshold, and 56.4 million at the 25% threshold. We calculated that 58.2 million people were pushed below the extreme poverty line of 1.90 United States dollars (US$) and 64.2 million people below US$ 3.10 (per capita per day values in 2011 purchasing power parity), due to out-of-pocket spending on health. Spending on medicines was the main component of out-of-pocket spending in most of the countries. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of people in South-East Asia experienced financial hardship due to out-of-pocket spending on health. Several countries have introduced policies to make medicines more available, but the finding that out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines remains high indicates that further action is needed to support progress towards universal health coverage.

Managing In- and Out-Migration of Health Workforce in Selected Countries in South East Asia Region.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend of international migration of health professionals from low- and middle- income countries to high-income countries as well as across middle-income countries. The WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel was created to better address health workforce development and the ethical conduct of international recruitment. This study assessed policies and practices in 4 countries in South East Asia on managing the in- and out-migration of doctors and nurses to see whether the management has been in line with the WHO Global Code and has fostered health workforce development in the region; and draws lessons from these countries. METHODS: Following the second round of monitoring of the Global Code of Practice, a common protocol was developed for an in-depth analysis of (a) destination country policy instruments to ensure expatriate and local professional quality through licensing and equal practice, (b) source country collaboration to ensure the out-migrating professionals are equally treated by destination country systems. Documents on employment practice for local and expatriate health professionals were also reviewed and synthesized by the country authors, followed by a cross-country thematic analysis. RESULTS: Bhutan and the Maldives have limited local health workforce production capacities, while Indonesia and Thailand have sufficient capacities but are at risk of increased out-migration of nurses. All countries have mandatory licensing for local and foreign trained professionals. Legislation and employment rules and procedures are equally applied to domestic and expatriate professionals in all countries. Some countries apply mandatory renewal of professional licenses for local professionals that require continued professional development. Local language proficiency required by destination countries is the main barrier to foreign professionals gaining a license. The size of outmigration is unknown by these 4 countries, except in Indonesia where some formal agreements exist with other governments or private recruiters for which the size of outflows through these mechanisms can be captured. CONCLUSION: Mandatory professional licensing, employment regulations and procedures are equally applied to domestic and foreign trained professionals, though local language requirements can be a barrier in gaining license. Source country policy to protect their out-migrating professionals by ensuring equal conditions of practice by destination countries is hampered by the fact that most out-migrating professionals leave voluntarily and are outside government to government agreements. This requires more international solidarity and collaboration between source and destination countries, for which the WHO Global Code is an essential and useful platform.

Accelerate Implementation of the WHO Global Code of Practice on International Recruitment of Health Personnel: Experiences From the South East Asia Region: Comment on "Relevance and Effectiveness of the WHO Global Code Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel - Ethical and Systems Perspectives".

Strengthening the health workforce and universal health coverage (UHC) are among key targets in the heath-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be committed by the United Nations (UN) Member States in September 2015. The health workforce, the backbone of health systems, contributes to functioning delivery systems. Equitable distribution of functioning services is indispensable to achieve one of the UHC goals of equitable access. This commentary argues the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Code of Practice on International Recruitment of Health Personnel is relevant to the countries in the South East Asia Region (SEAR) as there is a significant outflow of health workers from several countries and a significant inflow in a few, increased demand for health workforce in high- and middle-income countries, and slow progress in addressing the "push factors." Awareness and implementation of the Code in the first report in 2012 was low but significantly improved in the second report in 2015. An inter-country workshop in 2015 convened by WHO SEAR to review progress in implementation of the Code was an opportunity for countries to share lessons on policy implementation, on retention of health workers, scaling up health professional education and managing in and out migration. The meeting noted that capturing outmigration of health personnel, which is notoriously difficult for source countries, is possible where there is an active recruitment management through government to government (G to G) contracts or licensing the recruiters and mandatory reporting requirement by them. According to the 2015 second report on the Code, the size and profile of outflow health workers from SEAR source countries is being captured and now also increasingly being shared by destination country professional councils. This is critical information to foster policy action and implementation of the Code in the Region.

Overcoming health-systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Effective interventions exist for many priority health problems in low income countries; prices are falling, and funds are increasing. However, progress towards agreed health goals remains slow. There is increasing consensus that stronger health systems are key to achieving improved health outcomes. There is much less agreement on quite how to strengthen them. Part of the challenge is to get existing and emerging knowledge about more (and less) effective strategies into practice. The evidence base also remains remarkably weak, partly because health-systems research has an image problem. The forthcoming Ministerial Summit on Health Research seeks to help define a learning agenda for health systems, so that by 2015, substantial progress will have been made to reducing the system constraints to achieving the MDGs.